MADE IN 
GERMANY"/ 



FRANKLIN M. 
V SPRAGUE / 
\ AM. / 




Class. 

Book c3 6< 

GopyiightN? 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSfR 



"MADE IN GERMANY" 



"MADE IN GERMANY" 



BY 

FRANKLIN M. SPRAGUE, A.M. 

AUTHOR OP "socialism FROM GENESIS TO REVELATION," 
AND "the laws of SOCIAL EVOLITTION; a CRI- 
TIQUE ON KIDd's SOCIAL EVOLUTION" 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT 




THE PILGRIM PRESS 

BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO 



^. 



51^ 



,t) 



to^ 



coptbight 1915 
By franklin M. SPRAGUE 



# 



f ft 

THE Pi£gEIM PBESS 
BOSTON 

SEF 30 iiiiS 

©CI,A410919 



The Kaiser had the moral courage to assume the respon- 
sibility of beginning the conflict. — ''The Truth About 
Germany/' p. 29 * 

Germany should crush England, break up Russia and re- 
duce France to vassalage. — Professor Wilhelm Oswald, p. 
44. 

War is in itself a good thing. — Bernhardi, p. 43. 

The Germans must, regardless of the rights and inter- 
est of other peoples, fight their way to predominance and 
force upon humanity German Culture and Spirit. — "Ger- 
many in the Next War" p. 99. 

it is the grossest immorality that nations should respect 
the possessions of other nations. — Professor Hugo Mun- 
sterherg, p. 171. 

This step (beginning the war) was taken on his majesty's 
own initiative. — German Under Secretary of State, p. 7. 

Our troops have occupied Luxemburg, and are per- 
haps even now on Belgian soil. This act is contrary to 
the rights of nations. — Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg, 
p. 8. 

The treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality is only "a 
Scrap of Paper." — The German Chancellor, p. 10. 

Might makes right. — Treitschke, p. 84. 

Who opposes me I will crush to pieces. — The Kaiser, 
p. 45. 

The Prussian kings have given their country a great 
doctrine, the doctrine of militarism. — Br. Karl Lamprecht, 
p. 53. 

Take no prisoners. No quarter shall be given. — The 
Kaiser, p. 57. 

*A11 page references are to this volume ; " Made in Germany." 

[v] 



I am Jehovah's sword. Woe and death to those who 
resist my will. — The Kaiser, p. 58. 

We are and must be barbarians. ... I hope in this 
war we have merited the title of barbarians. — Major- 
General von BisfurtJi, p. 72. 

It was with my consent that the General had the whole 
place burned and about one hundred shot. (The real num- 
ber was between two and three hundred.) — General von 
Buelow, p. 73. 

I demand absolute blind obedience. — The Kaiser, p. 83. 

It is militarism that has permitted us to do great things. 
Let us keep our militarism. — Professor Niessen, Privy 
Councillor, p. 84. 

War is the greatest factor in the furtherance of cul- 
ture. — "Germany and the Next War/' p. 158. 

The whole realm of human knowledge has been con- 
centrated in the German brain. — Bernhardi, p. 160. 

The state is the sole judge of the morality of its own 
action. . . . It is above morality. — Treitschke, p. 169. 

Ye have heard men say Blessed are the peace makers, but 
I say unto you, Blessed are the war makers, for they shall 
be called, if not the children of Jahve, the children of Odin, 
who is greater than Jahvej — Nietzschke, p. 170. 

The Christian law of love applies only to individuals of 
the same state. — Bernhardi, p. 171. 

I believe . . . that the proclamation of the law on 
Mount Sinai must not be considered as inspired of God. — 
The Kaiser, p. 174. 

To us is given faith, hope and hatred, but hatred is the 
greatest among them. — Dr. Fuchs, German Journalist and 
retired Army Officer, p. 177. 

[vi] 



INTEODUCTION BY 
THEODORE EOOSEVELT 

It is a pleasure to me to write these few lines 
by way of preface to Mr. Sprague's book. I 
wish to call especial attention to what the book 
says about the duty of the United States, and 
the lamentable and dreadful failure of the 
United States to perform its duty, in connection 
with this world war. I rejoice as an American 
that an American clergyman should speak as 
Mr. Sprague does at a time when so many of 
those in America who claim to be the leaders 
of religious and philanthropic thought have 
occupied a position not merely futile but funda- 
mentally immoral. For this reason I am par- 
ticularly glad to call attention to Chapter IV. 
Mr. Sprague puts the case in a nutshell when 
he says that ''nothing is politically right that 
is morally wrong" and that, as Kant says, 
** there can be no such thing as moral neutral- 
ity." The case of Belgium, which he sets forth 
at length, is one that demanded action by the 
United States, if America was to be true to its 
obligations under international law, and, above 
all, if it was to be true to the spirit of righteous- 
ness throughout the world. I believe it prob- 
able that the United States might have inter- 

[vii] 



Introduction 

fered on behalf of Belgium without involving 
itself in the war ; but I hold righteousness first 
and the alternative of peace or war second; 
and it was our duty to act on behalf of Belgium, 
be the consequences what they might be. As 
Mr. Sprague shows, the American government 
has been derelict in its duty under international 
law, and, so far from being neutral, has really, 
by its failure to perform its duty, been of aid to 
Germany in destroying Belgium. Nor is the 
failure limited only to failure to protest against 
the violation of Belgian neutrality and the 
subjugation of Belgium. As Mr. Sprague 
shows, outrages of every kind, in defiance of 
the Hague and Geneva Conventions, have been 
committed by the German armies in Belgium 
and Northern France, on the English coasts, 
and against English and neutral ships; and 
finally our own ships have been destroyed and 
our own people murdered ; and yet our admin- 
istration has not dared to stand up for Ameri- 
can honor, for American interest and for the 
welfare of humanity. I commend particularly 
what Mr. Sprague has written in connection 
with the so-called ''sympathetic neutrality," 
which ex-President Jordan has advocated. In 
advancing this argument ex-President Jordan 
has studiously favored criminality by express- 
ing the same sympathy for it as for its victims. 
He preaches for America the Gospel of national 
cowardice, so far as our own rights are con- 
cerned, and, as regards our international duties, 

[ viii ] 



Introduction 

he preaches the meanest and basest form of 
abandonment of morality. As Mr. Sprague 
says, he is profoundly silent as regards all the 
moral considerations involved in the war; he 
dares not say one word in condemnation of the 
abhorrent immorality, of the infamous crime 
and wickedness, of the guilty parties in this 
war. He actually says that we are not to be 
pro or anti anything ! In other words, he takes 
a position as degrading as if in our internal af- 
fairs he announced that he was neutral between 
the white slaver and the white slaver's victim 
and was not *'pro or anti" either the bestial 
creature who rapes a child or the child who suf- 
fers the dreadful fate. Mr. Sprague is quite 
right in saying that the action of our govern- 
ment, in acting on the principles thus set forth 
by the more abject professional pacificists, has 
convicted the American Republic of wrong, of 
cowardice ; and of complicity in the worst inter- 
national crime that has been committed since 
Napoleon's downfall a century ago. 

America owes it to itself to prepare ; first, so 
as to be able to act in its own defence; and 
second, so that its weight may be felt when it 
takes action, as it ought to take action, in order 
to fight for righteousness and for the good of 
others, of humanity at large, if the need should 
arise ; and it owes it to itself to prove by such 
action that it repudiates the base and evil doc- 
trine which would teach us that a nation does 
its duty by observing a timid and selfish neu- 

[ix] 



Introduction 

trality between right and wrong, even when the 
right is absolutely clear and when the wrong 
represents every possible variant of inter- 
national crime. 

(Signed) Theodoee Roosevelt, 

Oyster Bay 

Long Island, N. T. 

August 16th, 1915 



[^] 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

Intboduction vii 

I. "Made in Germany" 1 

II. Offensive and Defensive Armaments . 30 

III. German Militarism 52 

IV. The Rights and Duties of Neutrality . 101 
V. German Culture 158 



[xi] 



CHAPTER I 
''MADE IN GEEMANY" 

We do not mean merchandise, but the war. 
''Made in Germany" is the proud trade-mark 
that bespeaks quality. "Made in Germany" 
will be the historical mark that will designate 
the most Titanic and Satanic war our planet 
has witnessed. The hosts of Xerxes at Ther- 
mopylae numbered two and a half million. At 
Issus, Darius had an army of six hundred thou- 
sand, while Alexander never commanded over 
one hundred and thirty-five thousand troops. 
The armies of both Caesar and Pompey at 
Pharsalia numbered only seventy thousand. 
Napoleon invaded Russia with six hundred 
thousand troops, while the combined armies at 
Waterloo numbered less than two hundred and 
fifty thousand. Now Europe trembles beneath 
the tread of seven million soldiers bent upon 
slaughtering each other. 

The responsibility of beginning the war is 
greater than any nation can bear. The hys- 
terical attempts of German apologists to ex- 
onerate their country does them credit, for the 
historian of Germany will point out this bloody 
blotch on her escutcheon and exclaim with 
Lady Macbeth, "It will not out, 0, damned 

[1] 



"Made in Germany'* 

spot!" Undisputed testimony compels this 
verdict. 

The triple alliance of Germany, Austria and 
Italy confronts the triple entente of Great 
Britain, France and Russia. If either of these 
nations is attacked by one of the other group, 
both groups or all the six nations are involved. 
This is so well understood that if one nation is 
determined upon war no amount of diplomacy 
can avert it; but diplomacy can — and in this 
case does — show what nation was determined 
upon war. This does not imply that other na- 
tions were wholly free from blame. The trade- 
mark ''Made in Germany" does not mean that 
all the constituents of the article are of German 
origin, but that the article as a completed prod- 
uct and put upon the market is German. So of 
this war: ''Made in Germany" does not mean 
that other nations are not more or less contrib- 
utory, but that the war, as a completed product, 
was put upon the world by Germany. 

The tragedy at Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, 
was incidental and a mere pretext. Austria, 
previously incited by Germany, sent an ulti- 
matum to Servia making ten demands. Servia 
assented to nine and offered to arbitrate the 
tenth. No fairer proposition could be made. 
Upon receiving this answer Austria hesitated, 
as well she might, for she had no longer cause 
for war. 

At this juncture Austria and all the world 
turned to Germany. One word from her 

[2] 



"^Made in Germany" 

would halt all war proceedings. Would she 
speak that word? Alas, no! The German am- 
bassador at Vienna said, *'As for Germany, 
she knew very well what she was about in back- 
ing up Austria-Hungary in the matter." Ger- 
many's ''White Paper" says, "We assured 
Austria that any action considered necessary 
to end the movement in Servia would meet with 
our approval. She (Servia) had led Europe to 
the brink of a world war ... we would not 
advise our ally to take a yielding attitude." 
The war sure to follow these words may justly 
be labelled, ''Made in Germany." Austria be- 
gan at once to mobilize, as did Eussia, Servia 's 
ally. All Europe is now trembling. Sir 
Edward Grey in his heroic efforts for peace has 
about persuaded Eussia and Austria to meet 
in a peace conference with other nations. Hope 
springs up everywhere at the prospect of peace 
which would have filled the world with joy, 
when "lo! impossible to believe, Germany re- 
fuses to enter this conference of the nations 

Germany not only precipitated the 

war but she desired it." 

Upon Germany 's refusal to participate in the 
proposed conference upon technical grounds, 
she was asked to suggest some other method 
for conference but declined to do so. 

The civilized world condemns "Austria's 
brutal ultimatum and indecent precipitancy 
toward Servia." No government could sub- 
mit to it and continue independent, and yet 

[3] 



"Made in Germany" 

Germany promptly characterized it as *' equi- 
table and moderate." This accords perfectly 
with her purpose of war. 

The triple alliance applies only to defensive 
warfare. On this ground Italy refused to sup- 
port Austria. Germany, therefore, was under 
no obligations to assist Austria ; but she hastens 
to assure her of support. 

Germany, unable longer to conceal her pur- 
pose of attacking France, comes into the open 
and asks England if she will remain neutral 
on condition that Germany will promise to 
acquire no French territory in Europe. When 
asked if she would make the same promise re- 
specting French colonies, she declined to do so. 
France then was to be conquered and deprived 
in part or in whole of her territories. This 
proposal to betray her ally and stand by and 
see France ruined filled England with surprise 
and indignation and she promptly rejected the 
proposal. 

At this time, July 31st, Germany made a 
preposterous demand upon Russia. Eussia had 
mobilized her troops in the lower districts to 
assist Servia against Austria and assured 
Germany that she would not mobilize against 
Germany or attack her unless Germany took 
the offensive. In spite of this assurance, Ger- 
many, on July 31st, addressed an ultimatum 
to Eussia demanding that she demobilize all 
her troops, and demanding an answer within 
twelve hours ; unless Eussia complied Germany 

[4] 



"Made in Germany*' 

would mobilize her troops on the Eussian and 
French frontiers. 

By this act the die was cast. Three things 
are to be noted in this demand by Germany. 
First, Germany exceeded her rights in this 
ultimatum. No government has a right to 
demand that another sovereign government de- 
mobilize its troops. If Germany really wanted 
peace, instead of this unwarrantable demand 
followed by a declaration of war, she would 
have proposed that both governments demo- 
bilize. Second, the time limit of twelve hours in 
which to answer was impossible, as Germany 
well knew. Third, this ultimatum made the war 
inevitable, and it was ''Made in Germany.'* 

The utter emptiness of Germany's claim 
that she is acting only in self-defense and fight- 
ing for her life, is seen in the way she treated 
the offer of England to come to her defense in 
case of attack. Sir Edward Grey while plead- 
ing with her for peace, uttered these most re- 
markable words : ''If you will only preserve the 
peace of Europe, I will endeavor to promote 
some arrangements, to which Germany shall 
be a party, whereby she could be assured that 
no aggressive or hostile policy would be pur- 
sued against her or her allies by Prance, 
Russia, or ourselves jointly or separately." 
Germany virtually assured of protection by 
Great Britain even if the latter had to break 
with her allies and act "separately"! For any 
"arrangement" that could give such "assur- 

[5] 



''Made in Germany" 

ance" must involve the possibility of acting 
"separately" if need be. Germany promised 
the support of England against the world if 
she will only pursue a course whereby the 
** peace of Europe can be secured"! All honor 
to Sir Edward Grey for these oracular words 
inspired by the Prince of Peace. They present 
to Germany the crucial test of her sincerity re- 
garding peace. How does she receive them? 
She ignores them and declares war. 

That Germany made the war is settled at 
once and forever by the frank admission of the 
emperor himself. On August 4th, the Kaiser 
declared from the throne as follows: ''The 
present situation arose from ill will existing 
for years against the strength and prosperity 
of the German empire." 

It is not then the tragedy at Sarajevo, nor 
Servian agitation, nor the Austrian ultimatum, 
nor Russian mobilization, nor all of these to- 
gether that is the real cause of ''the present 
situation," but ''ill will against German pros- 
perity"; Germany resents this "ill will"; she 
will not allow a feeling of "jealousy" on the 
part of other nations, and so will punish them 
by making war upon them. 

This reason for war is utterly inadequate and 
puerile, as shown by the "great strength and 
prosperity ' ' of Germany, which have developed 
side by side with this alleged "ill will," no 
instance of which the Kaiser deigns to specify. 
If it has been so harmless in the past how does 

[6] 



''Made in Germany'' 

it suddenly become a bogy? The question un- 
masks the real purpose of Germany, which is 
conquest and power. 

This is just as clearly brought out in the 
Emperor's speech at the palace before the as- 
sembled thousands. He said, "Envious people 
everywhere are compelling us to our just 
defense.'' Defense? No attack by anybody is 
hinted at. No invasion, no hostile act, no threat 
from anyone, no injury to her interests which 
are so prosperous as to excite the admiration 
and envy of the world, and yet Germany must 
spring to her ''just defense" — against what? 
Why, ''envious peoples everywhere." To 
punish them she will drench Europe in blood. 

The point now, however, is that this clear 
and unqualified admission of the emperor 
shows that the war was "Made in Germany." 
We can safely go a step further on the highest 
authority ; the German under secretary of state 
for foreign affairs said, on July 26th, ''This 
step was taken on his majesty's own initiative.'' 

Germany's Attitude Towaed Treaties 

A treaty is a solemn contract between 
nations. The great treaties of Europe begin as 
follows : "In the Name of the Most Holy and In- 
divisible Trinity," or "In the Name of 
Almighty God. " It is the most sacred contract 
mankind can make. It is more binding than 
the marriage contract or covenants concerning 
private property, since all civilization, all prog- 

[7] 



"Made in Germany" 

ress in the world, human or divine, depend 
upon it. 

Such a treaty existed between Belgium and 
the governments of Great Britain, France, 
Germany, Austria and Eussia. In this treaty 
Belgium agreed to be neutral in case of war be- 
tween these parties, and they each agreed to 
keep out of Belgium and help her keep the 
others out in case of invasion. Thus Belgian 
neutrality was guaranteed. Germany was un- 
der special obligation to respect this guarantee 
since she had, through Bismarck in 1870, ex- 
pressly renewed it and in writing. This obli- 
gation was distinctly recognized by the German 
chancellor, who on August 4th, said in the 
Reichstag, *'Our troops have occupied Luxem- 
burg, and are perhaps even now on Belgian 
soil. This act is contrary to the rights of 
nations." Fatal admission, whereat history 
will pause. 

France, trusting to Germany's promise, had 
left her northern frontier unprotected. Ger- 
many would take advantage of this trust and 
the defenseless frontiers by attacking France 
through Belgian territory. Accordingly Ger- 
many now requests England to become neutral 
and to violate her agreement to guarantee Bel- 
gian neutrality, and to allow Germany to do 
the same by moving her armies through Bel- 
gium and using it as a basis of operations in 
making war against France. England, pro- 
foundly moved and indignant at the vicious 

[8] 



"Made in Germany** 

character of this request, promptly refuses to 
repudiate her solemn international obligations 
by betraying Belgium and sacrificing her own 
self-respect and honor. 

Sir Edward Grey now requests France and 
Germany to say whether they will respect 
their guarantee of Belgian neutrality. France 
answers yes ; Germany, no. Germany now sends 
an ultimatum to Belgium saying that she can- 
not respect the latter 's neutrality, but is about 
to make use of her territory in attacking 
France. Germany adds that she will respect 
Belgium's sovereignty and make good all 
losses unless she offers resistance, in which 
case Germany will treat her as an enemy. 

This message struck Belgium with amaze- 
ment, indignation and terror. Under the pal- 
ladium of neutrality she had for seventy years 
enjoyed peace and prosperity. She was now 
stunned at the perfidy of Germany in demand- 
ing that she violate her sacred promise of neu- 
trality, allow her soil to become the theatre of 
war, and shamefully betray France, one of the 
signatories to the treaty guaranteeing her 
neutrality. 

Belgium did not hesitate a moment. She re- 
fused Germany's demand and declared that she 
would defend her ** rights by every means in 
her power." 

Just here dates speak louder than Germany's 
protestations of desiring and seeking peace and 
show her purpose of war and her responsibility 

[9] 



"Made in Germany'* 

for beginning it. Belgium received Germany's 
ultimatum August 2nd ; she replied August 3rd ; 
Germany attacked her August 4th. German 
troops, therefore, must have been marching 
towards Belgium before Germany deigned to 
give any notice of her purpose. 

This contempt of Belgium, this utter oblivion 
of treaty obligations and the rights of nations 
staggers the world: indeed, the German chan- 
cellor declared that this treaty which guaran- 
teed Belgian neutrality was only ''a scrap of 
paper. ' ' 

In the councils of nations what weight can 
hereafter attach to the promises of Germany? 
Gladstone's admission that a ''particular posi- 
tion" might exempt a guarantor of neutrality 
from participating in a war to enforce it, a 
doctrine that the newer Christian ethics ren- 
ders more and more untenable, has no appli- 
cation to this case. Germany's only excuse is 
"military necessity" — the very exigency the 
treaty was designed to meet. 

In a treaty between sister nations Germany 
solemnly appeals to the "Most Holy and In- 
divisible Trinity" to witness her sincerity and 
fidelity in the performance of its stipulations, 
and then, when it suits her convenience, she 
calls that treaty "a scrap of paper," tramples 
it in the dust and plunges Europe in a sea of 
blood. Has any nation, ancient or modern, civ- 
ilized or savage, ever presented to the human 
race a more revolting example of moral apos- 

[10] 



''Made in Germany'* 

tacyl The blessings of peace, the horrors of 
war, the sanctity of treaties, national honor, in- 
ternational law, the claims of humanity and the 
behests of the Almighty, render this cruel and 
wanton violation of Belgian neutrality an insult 
to civilization and the highest crime known to 
mankind. 

Geemany's Secret Peeparation foe War 

"When Germany's troops had penetrated 
Belgium and France, certain soldiers were 
heard to exclaim, *'It seems natural to be 
around here again." It seems that these sol- 
diers had been detailed months before to visit 
these places and find out the condition of the 
roads, the places where supplies could be had, 
the means of shelter for troops, etc. 

Several years ago the Germans, under pre- 
tence of digging wells or laying foundations for 
factories, made concrete platforms in the coun- 
try before the Maubeuge forts. Somehow these 
factories did not go up ; but when at length the 
bugle sounded for war, the factories placed on 
these platforms took the shape of monstrous 
cannon of longer range than those of the forts. 
Thus the forts were helpless and obliged to 
succumb. 

The British embassy at Washington officially 
declares what indeed is well known, that under 
pretext of commerce, Germany ** since 1906 has 
established an elaborate network of strategical 
railways leading from the Khine to the Belgian 

[11] 



"Made in Germany" 

frontier through a barren, thinly-populated 
tract, deliberately constructed to permit of the 
sudden attack upon Belgium which was carried 
out two months ago. 

According to the London Times, ''an inter- 
cepted letter addressed to the commander of 
the German gunboat Eber . . . contained in- 
structions from Berlin, dated June 14, 1914, a 
fortnight before the Sarajevo murders, reveal- 
ing a complete system for coaling the German 
navy on the outbreak of war, through secret 
agents in Cape Town, New York and Chicago. ' ' 
If this be the fact it shows that neither the 
Sarajevo tragedy nor any other grievance of 
Austria against Servia furnished anything 
more than a pretext for a war which Germany 
was determined to make. 

For years Germany has carried on a spy 
system in Belgium and France so elaborate and 
extensive as to be almost incredible. Thousands 
of spies scattered through these countries and 
ostensibly acting as business men or laborers, 
have been busy in obtaining exact information 
of large and small details which are now in the 
possession of German officers and are of the 
greatest value to the invaders. For example, 
these officers have a list of rich men in every 
city whom they select as hostages. They have 
an estimate of the ready money in every city, 
know where every horse and ton of hay can be 
found, where every river can be forded and 
where every bridge is located. It is now re- 

[12] 



"Made in Germany'' 

marked ''that at the end or near the end of 
many bridges having strategic importance 
there was a German factory." In France it is 
said *'the Germans know how many bottles of 
wine may be expected in each locality. ' ' 

Of course a country providing for a strictly 
defensive war may employ spies, but a gov- 
ernment that will carry on such a spy sys- 
tem as this in other countries at great labor 
and expense is looking for compensation 
only in one way, and that is by aggressive 
war. 

We do not know what secret correspondence 
took place between Germany and Austria prior 
to the war, but Germany now publishes a 
''White Paper" that shows that she alone in- 
stigated it. It says, "We assured Austria that 
any action considered necessary to end the 
movement in Servia . . . would meet with our 
approval." It advises Austria "not to take a 
yielding attitude" toward Servia, even if it 
"should bring Eussia into the field" and 
*' involve us in a war." Could Germany have 
employed language more inflammable? Ger- 
many was behind Austria's ultimatum to Servia 
and Austria was her willing tool ; otherwise she 
never would have thus challenged both Servia 
and Russia. It is because the word "war" 
was first on German lips, because she first ad- 
vised it, secretly planned for it and took the first 
steps to bring it on, that we say the war was 
"Made in Germany." 

[13] 



"Made in Germany'* 
The Allies Did Not Make the War 

The horrors of war have led to the indiscrim- 
inate censure of all the nations engaged in it. 
This is unjust and foolish. War is not the only 
hell nor the worst one. Unrighteousness or in- 
justice is worse than war. The peace-at-any- 
price doctrine is immoral and is opposed to the 
Christian religion, and, as all experience shows, 
only postpones the conflict. "First pure 
(righteous) then peaceable" is the injunction of 
the Scriptures. 

Nations as well as individuals, alone or al- 
lied, innocent of wrong-doing, may fight in self- 
defense, but only as a last resort and after 
every effort for peace has failed. 

The allies did not make this war ; it was made 
upon them by Germany that spurned every 
overture of the allies for peace. We do not say 
that the allies have not made preparations for 
war in the past, or have done all they could to 
promote peace, or that they are better or worse 
than their enemies. It is admitted that past 
conduct, causes and influences are more or less 
responsible for the war, but, although German 
apologists drag these things into the discussion, 
they are irrelevant. The issue is single. If 
two men are arraigned for fighting and it ap- 
pears that one began a deadly assault upon 
the other in spite of the latter 's earnest request 
for a peaceful settlement, the court will find 
the aggressor guilty. The court will not listen 

[14] 



''Made in Germany'* 

to former jealousies and animosities between 
the parties, but will decide the case upon its 
own merits and the immediate facts, and will 
find the aggressor guilty. He who threatened 
violence, refused peace and struck the first 
blow will be declared guilty, while the attacked, 
no matter how hard he hits back, will be 
declared innocent. 

England Did Not Begin the Wab 

Chancellor Lloyd-George was earnestly urg- 
ing a reduction of armaments on the very day 
Austria sent her ultimatum to Servia. 

Winston Churchill's voice was raised elo- 
quently to induce Great Britain to reduce her 
navy; but when Germany would not agree to 
any reduction, he felt that England had no 
choice but must be prepared. 

Sir Edward Grey's efforts to prevent war 
were heroic. 

Austria's ultimatum to Servia was on July 
23rd. The war began ten days later, August 
2nd. During those ten days according to The 
Outlook, Sir Edward Grey sent no less than 
forty-seven telegrams and letters, in the inter- 
ests of peace, to English representatives at the 
capitals of Europe. This would make four or 
five letters a day or one every two hours for 
each of the ten working days of eight hours 
each. He asked Servia to give Austria the 
fullest satisfaction if her charges were true ; he 
urged France, Germany, Russia and Italy to 

[15] 



''Made in Germany'* 

join England in a combined effort for peace. 
All promptly assented except Germany which 
declined. Still undiscouraged Sir Edward Grey 
declared himself ready to join the four powers 
in any method looking for peace and pointed 
out the great danger of war. As the danger 
drew on he made one last supreme bid for peace 
by a virtual promise to Germany of England's 
assistance in case of need. Germany had de- 
clared that her only object was self-defense 
against the impending attacks of enemies. Sir 
Edward Grey now promised Germany that if 
she would keep the peace, he would '' promote 
an arrangement to which Germany could be a 
party, by which she could be assured that no 
aggressive or hostile policy would be pursued 
against her or her allies by France, Eussia or 
ourselves jointly or separately." 

Although Germany ignored these words, 
which left her without a shadow of excuse for 
war, the world will not forget them. No sub- 
limer words were ever heard in the parliaments 
of the world than these uttered by Britain's 
great statesman and peacemaker. They show 
conclusively that England did not want war; 
she did not expect it, was not prepared for it 
and was the last to engage in it, and then 
only to fulfil her solemn international obliga- 
tions, to protect a weaker and worthy nation 
from destruction by a more powerful one 
and to preserve her own self-respect and 
honor. 

[16] 



^'Made in Germany" 

EussiA Did Not Begiit the War 

All European nations knew of the entente be- 
tween Servia and Russia, and that Russia 
would not allow either the territory or sover- 
eignty of Servia to be impaired. When, there- 
fore, on July 24th, Austria sent her impossible 
ultimatum to Servia and demanded an answer 
within twenty-four hours, Sazonof, premier of 
Russia, on the same day asked Austria to ex- 
tend the time in order that the Powers might 
have an opportunity to consider the matter. 
Austria refused. On the 26th, Sazonof appealed 
to Italy and Germany to influence their ally, 
Austria, in favor of peace. The next day he 
accepted England's proposal for a conference 
of the powers — or any other method that prom- 
ised peace. The next day he twice telegraphed 
England urging her to influence Germany for 
peace. The next day he telegraphed Germany 
that the Russian mobilization was not against 
Germany nor did it indicate aggressive meas- 
ures toward Austria, and urged a conference 
of Germany, France, England and Italy, and 
also one between Austria and Russia, to secure 
peace. Both Germany and Austria refused. 
The next day he telegraphed England that 
Russia would adopt any measures England 
might suggest for peace. On the next two days 
— July 30th and 31st — he telegraphed Ger- 
many, France, Austria, England and Italy, that 
if Austria would consent to stay the march of 

[17] 



*'Made in Germany" 

her armies on Servia, and would allow the 
powers to consider what reparation Servia 
should make to Austria without impairing her 
sovereignty, Russia would cease her military 
preparations. Austria again refused her con- 
sent to this proposal. On the next day Germany 
declared war against Russia, because Russia re- 
fused to demobilize her troops. 

The above named efforts of Russia to secure 
peace are effectively summarized in The Out- 
look of October 7, 1914. 

A careful perusal of the ''White Papers" of 
both England and Germany and the Russian 
''Orange Paper," all official documents, will 
convince any unprejudiced person that the war 
was not begun by Russia. On the contrary 
Russia did everything that a peace-seeking 
nation could do to prevent war. 

When the Austrian troops first attacked the 
Servian army, the latter, to the surprise of all 
nations, declined to fight and "fell back." It 
now appears that this was done at the request 
of Russia in order to give the powers further 
time for a peace conference. Russia even went 
so far as to declare that she was "quite ready 
to stand aside and leave the question in the 
hands of England, France, Germany and 
Italy." 

Fkance Did Not Begin the Wae 

France had the least to say and was next to 
the last to act of any state engaged in the war. 

[18] 



''Made in Germany'* 

It was, however, well understood that France 
and Eussia were bound to act together. This 
explains the determination of Germany first 
to crush France and then turn her attention to 
Russia. France had given no cause for war. 
She was not thinking of war and was un- 
prepared for it. This is admitted by the Ger- 
man ambassador at Vienna, who said, ' ^ France, 
too, was not at all in a condition for facing 
war. ' ' 

England asked the powers to meet in confer- 
ence to stay the war. To this request France 
replied, ''Your proposal is accepted by the 
French government. ' ' 

"When Great Britain demanded of France 
and Germany to say whether they would re- 
spect the neutrality of Belgium, France said, 
yes ; Germany said, no. Dr. Frederick Lynch, 
secretary of the Church Peace union, was in 
France and Germany when the war broke out, 
and he passed through Liege two days before 
the German attack upon it. In his ' ' Through 
Europe on the Eve of War," he says, ''The 
French had made no move up to this time and 
were still trying to secure peace by negotiations 
with the other powers." 

In no country, not even in the United States, 
is the anti-militarist sentiment so strong as in 
France. Among all classes various organiza- 
tions and groups of men, clericals, educators, 
workmen and statesmen have for years been 
opposing war with such determination as to em- 

[191 



"Made in Germany'* 

barrass and alarm the government. The Con- 
federation of Labor with its 500,000 paying 
members, the Federation of the Teachers' 
Benevolent association numbering 100,000, the 
socialists groups with 100 members in parlia- 
ment, have all united in an anti-militarist prop- 
aganda that has demoralized the army, and 
defied the government. It was felt that the first 
shot fired in war might be the signal for an- 
other commune. A writer says in view of this 
feeling throughout France that ''nothing short 
of actual invasion of her territory by German 
troops could have compelled France to take an 
active part in the European conflict." 

AUSTEIA-HUNGAKY THE Cat'S-Paw OF GeKMANY 

What Austria did to bring on the war was 
as the agent or cat's-paw of Germany. Aus- 
tria's ultimatum to Servia shows a grievance, 
but it does not show a sufficient cause for war ; 
and if it did, it was entirely removed by Ser- 
via 's answer. 

Austria well knew that war with Servia 
meant war with Russia, Servia 's ally. That 
Austria, single-handed would challenge forces 
that could promptly swallow her up, no one be- 
lieves. The French claim that ''the German 
emperor forced Austria to fight when she was 
willing to submit her differences with Servia to 
an international conference." 

Germany's "White Paper," page one, un- 
consciously discloses the fact that she herself is 

[20] 



''Made in Germany'* 

the real cause of the war. This *' paper" says, 
*'It was the idea of Russian statesmen that 
there should be formed a Balkan league . . . 
against the existence of the Austrian-Hunga- 
rian monarchy." Then the part each Balkan 
state was to play is set forth. * ' The Austrian- 
Hungarian government advised us of this view 
of the situation and asked our opinion in the 
matter ... we were able to assure our ally 
most heartily of our agreement . . . and that 
any action she might take . . . would receive 
our approval. We were fully aware that . . . 
any warlike movement on the part of Austria- 
Hungary against Servia would bring Russia 
into the question and might draw us into a war 
. . . Our interests were also seriously threat- 
ened ... if Servia with the help of France and 
Russia had been allowed to imperil the exist- 
ence of Austria, she would be no longer an ally 
on which we could count against the attitude 
of our eastern and western neighbors, which 
has constantly grown more threatening . . . 
We, therefore, gave Austria a free hand." 

It was this secret '^advice" given, we know 
not when, and which may be the only part Ger- 
many deigns to make known, that pushed the 
button that set the war in motion. Germany 
was ready and the Sarajevo tragedy furnished 
the pretext. 

That Austria was merely a cat's-paw, is con- 
clusively shown by the Kaiser's own admission 
before quoted: ''The present situation arose 

[21] 



''Made in Germany" 

from ill will existing for years against tlie 
strength and prosperity of the German 
empire. ' ' 

A Wae of Conquest To Be ''Made in. 
Germany" 

For a generation such a war has been pre- 
dicted and advocated in Germany. German 
scholars, statesmen and militarists have been 
educating the people to believe that aggressive 
war, conquest for German national expansion, 
dominion and glory, was in harmony with the 
laws of nature and of nature 's God. 

Americans who have occasionally noticed 
such sentiments from German sources have dis- 
missed them as sporadic and chimerical. "We 
now stand aghast at the fact that they repre- 
sent a philosophy held by foremost German 
scholars, a national policy held by the kaiser, 
bureaucrats and militarists, a philosophy and a 
policy that are responsible for the war and that 
completely dominate Germany in this crisis. 

Christendom is now startled at the discov- 
ery that a philosophy so subversive of religion, 
so repugnant to Christian ethics, so antagonis- 
tic to the new spirit of peace and good will 
toward men, in a word, so thoroughly pagan, 
could obtain in scientific, cultured and 
progressive Germany. 

In 1875, Heinrich von Treitschke became pro- 
fessor of history in Berlin and also a member 
of the Reichstag. His brilliancy attracted to his 

[22] 



''Made in Germany'^ 

lecture room '^a dense throng not only of stu- 
dents, but of soldiers, writers, officials, all the 
intellectual leadership of Germany." Having 
just conquered France the people were glory- 
ing in their prowess and the fruits of victory. 
The professor taught such doctrines as these : 
' ' That the strong should triumph over the weak 
is an inexorable law of nature. ' ' The idea that 
weak nations have a right to live ' ' cannot for a 
moment be allowed to check the career of Ger- 
man conquest. Why talk of founding colonies ? 
Let us take Holland; then we shall have them 
ready made. " ' * God will see to it that war 
always recurs as a drastic medicine for the hu- 
man race. ' ' The downfall of England and the 
harvest of loot that could be reaped was a 
worthy object. His words are, ''Germany with 
60,000,000 virile people should address herself 
to the downfall of England . . . and then of 
what an inheritance to take possession ! ' ' These 
ideas appealing to passions that can be aroused 
far more readily than they can be allayed, took 
possession of German universities, schools and 
influential groups of people and spread over 
the land. 

Dr. Hans Delbruck, professor and editor, de- 
clared that ''Germany was bound to expand at 
the expense of one and all of the three great 
powers, England, France and Russia. ... It 
is the mission of Germany to save Europe and 
Asia from the rule of the Muscovite. ' ' 

Prof. Wilhelm Ostwald of Leipsic university 
[23] 



''Made in Germany'* 

says, "The way to have peace is to have Ger- 
many victorious. She should crush England, 
and break up Russia and reduce France to vas- 
salage. ' ' We should have taken this sentiment 
lightly before the war, but now we see that it 
was uttered with a seriousness that is nothing 
less than deadly. 

Three years ago Gen. Friedrich von Bern- 
hardi wrote a book on * ' Germany and the Next 
War." It is the textbook of German militar- 
ism. It created consternation in England and 
France. We quote: "War is the greatest fac- 
tor in the furtherance of culture as well as 
power." "War is a biological necessity of the 
first importance." "Might makes right." 
' ' What is right is dictated only by the arbitra- 
ment of war." The Christian law of love 
"applies only to individuals of the same state 
and has no significance for the relations of one 
country to another." "The idea that a weak 
nation has the same right to live as a powerful 
and vigorous nation is subversive of human de- 
velopment." "Wars deliberately provoked 
have had the happiest results." "A sacrifice 
to an alien nation is immoral. " " France must 
be so completely crushed that she can never 
again cross our path." "An expression of 
German power is a political necessity ... it 
must be fought and won." For Germany, "it 
is either world power or downfall. " " Her atti- 
tude must be offensive and aggressive at the 
start." 

[24] 



"Made in Germany* 

This book appeared three years ago and de- 
clared that the time to proclaim the war would 
be 1914. It sounds like history rather than 
prophecy. It is the Bible of the dominating 
militarism of Germany. Its brutal principles 
and inhuman doctrines have been and are being 
followed to the letter by the Kaiser and his ad- 
visors. The wonder is that they waited so long 
before beginning the war. 

Last year a German retired military officer 
wrote in, "On War of Today," ''I hope the 
German people will assert and maintain itself 
as the dominating race of Europe." 

The German philosopher, Nietzsche, in his 
"War and the People" says, "You should use 
peace as a means to new war and brief peace 
more than a long one. Do you say, 'It is a good 
cause by which a war is hallowed'? I say unto 
you it is a good war which hallows every cause. 
War and courage have done greater things than 
love of one's neighbor." 

General von Edelsheim of the Prussian gen- 
eral staff, recently published a paper in which 
he pointed out the method which Germany in 
its conquest of the world, would pursue in at- 
tacking the United States. He says, "The 
Germans have to ask themselves what force 
they can bring to bear in order to meet the 
attacks of the United States against their 
interests and to impose their will." 

In 1880 von Moltke said, "Perpetual peace 
is a dream and it is not even a beautiful 

[25] 



"Made in Germany" 

dream. War is an element in the order of 
the world ordained by God. Without war 
the world would stagnate and lose itself in 
materialism. ' ' 

The Belgian ''Gray Paper'* shows ''that 
Belgium tried to be in league with Germany 
three years ago. It tried to obtain from the 
German government a declaration that Ger- 
many had no intention of violating Belgian 
neutrality." The request was refused. A dis- 
tinguished writer says, ' ' The attack on Belgium 
had been carefully planned for a score of 
years." 

Professor Muensterberg in his, "The War 
and America," eulogizes war, saying, "Only 
war can adjust the power of countries to the 
changing stages of their inner development." 
"It is the grossest immorality" for Americans 
to say "that nations should respect the 
possessions of other nations." 

Prof. John Warbeke, for three years a student 
in a German university, says, "The rank and 
file, as well as the aristocracy, from laborers 
and small shopkeepers, petty officials and stu- 
dents to judges of the supreme court and uni- 
versity professors who have become secret 
counsellors, not only in Berlin and Bonn, but in 
Munich and Heidleberg, all have become omi- 
nously full of the doctrine of the survival of the 
fittest and the consequent expediency of power, 
not only in intellectual rivalry, but in Krupps 
and high explosives. ' ' 

[26] 



"Made in Germany" 

For more than a generation German children 
have been taught in school and by all the multi- 
plied influences in both public and private life 
that impress the plastic mind of youth, that the 
chief end of man was to glorify, not God, but 
the army and war. Obsessed with this idea and 
duped with the utterly false belief that millions 
of enemies stood on their borders with bristling 
bayonets about to burn their homes, sack their 
cities and destroy their native land, the German 
soldiers entered upon the war. 

Prof. Eoland G. Usher of Washington uni- 
versity, at St. Louis, published a year ago his 
*' Pan-Germanism," wherein he asserts that 
Germany's purpose might ''at any moment re- 
sult in a war whose consequences would be felt 
alike by the farmers in North Dakota, the oper- 
ators in the Lancashire cotton mills and the 
savages in the heart of Africa." This was 
written a year before the war and describes the 
exact state of things today. He goes on to say, 
"The Germans aim at nothing less than the 
domination of Europe and of the world by the 
German race ... it is an aggressive scheme 
for the actual, forcible conquest of the world. ' ' 
This German author has attracted wide atten- 
tion for the clear, dispassionate exposition of 
Germany's purpose and program. He tells us 
that ''in the German navy it is customary to 
drink to a toast, 'To the Day,' " and that the 
toast "means not only the destruction of the 
British empire and the disruption of the 

[27] 



*'Made in Germany'* 

Frencli republic, but also the domination of 
the world." 

Dr. Ernst Richard, a German, says, "The 
Germans are determined to win at any cost, and 
after their victory to leave their enemies in 
such shape that they will never be able to dis- 
turb the peace again." In other words they 
must be permanently subject to Germany. The 
note of vindictiveness and malice in this utter- 
ance is even more disturbing than its idea of 
conquest. 

The German Admiral Hermann Kirchoff 
writes under date of September 4th, *' England 
must be crushed. But is this possible? Indeed 
it is . . . German military and naval forces 
are now ready to throw themselves on England 
and destroy it by all means at their disposal by 
water, in the air, and on the land." 

The German professors Eucken and Haeckel 
of Jena issue an appeal to American universi- 
ties for sympathy based on culture. They say, 
* ' These universities know what German culture 
means to the world, so we trust they will stand 
by Germany. ' ' 

German pagan intellectual culture, as a sub- 
stitute for Christian ethics will appeal in vain 
to American Christian scholarship and ethical 
culture. With Americans an ounce of righteous- 
ness is worth a ton of culture. 

We are not now, however, concerned with the 
moral character of the sentiments expressed in 
the foregoing citations by representative Ger- 

[28] 



"Made in Germany" 

mans. What we do say is this : that any nation 
holding these views, viz., that might makes 
right, that neighborly love ceases at the state 
line, that ''blood and iron" are preferable to 
conference and peace, that the size of a nation 
determines its right to exist, that a treaty is 
only **a scrap of pajjer;" and to uphold it is 
"hypocrisy"; that respect for the possessions 
of other nations is the ''grossest immorality," 
that militarism is superior to morals; that its 
"place in the sun" requires it to put all other 
nations in the shade by force of arms; that 
killing men is "a biological necessity"; that 
culture rather than righteousness exalts a na- 
tion and that Mars is the only true God; any 
nation we repeat dominated by these views, is 
bound to make war and such a nation has made 
this war. 

Eleven representative Germans have now 
issued a pamphlet, "The Truth About Ger- 
many," which says, "The kaiser had the moral 
courage to assume the responsibility of begin- 
ning the conflict." History will accept this 
declaration that the war was "Made in 
Germany." 



[29] 



CHAPTER II 

OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE 
AEMAMENTS 

Armaments mean equipments of war, such as 
troops, munitions and warships. There is much 
shallow thinking and consequent confusion con- 
cerning them. Probably most Americans re- 
gard great armaments as an evil, while small 
armaments may be a good. The difficulty of 
drawing the line between great and small arma- 
ments leads some to reject them altogether, 
while the views of others are as wide apart as 
the poles. 

The Peinciple of Akmaments 

This principle is that for the protection of 
life and property, the necessary means may be 
employed. The principle applies to individuals 
as well as to nations. It is the principle of self- 
preservation, everywhere regarded as a law of 
nature. 

In the case of nations these necessary means 
are called armaments ; in the case of individuals 
no one word covers the various means em- 
ployed. A lock on the door, the fastenings and 
iron shutters on the windows, the burglar-proof 
safe, the massive, walled-in vaults for valuables, 

[30] 



Offensive and Defensive Armaments 

the steel vest worn by the man whose life is 
threatened, these and other devices, as well as 
the small sword and pistol are the armaments 
of the individual. 

The clamorous denunciation of armaments 
would be more effective if it did not overlook 
the principle involved. It is clearly incon- 
sistent for a man to denounce all means of pro- 
tection and then proceed to lock his doors 
against burglars. This brings us to an 
important distinction. 

Offensive and Defensive Armaments 

In applying the principle of armaments to 
individuals, the examples given were for pur- 
poses of defence. So in the case of the nation, 
we must distinguish sharply between offensive 
and defensive armaments. The failure to do 
this, the indiscriminate condemnation on the one 
hand, and praise on the other of armaments, re- 
gardless of the uses for which they are de- 
signed, has led to all sorts of misapprehensions 
and vagaries. In the past offensive war and 
armaments have not only been tolerated but 
praised; to-day, however, they are not only 
an anachronism but an outrage against our civ- 
ilization. Defensive armaments, on the other 
hand, are not only justifiable but absolutely 
necessary. 

Only three hundred years ago Cavendish 
wrote as follows; ''It has pleased Almighty 
God to suffer me to circumpass the whole globe 
[31] 



''Made in Germany'' 

of the world ... I navigated along the coasts 
of Chili, Peru and New Spain where I made 
great spoils. All the villages and towns that 
ever I landed at I burned and despoiled, and 
had I not been discovered upon the coast, I had 
taken great quantity of treasure. The Lord be 
praised for his mercies." The sweet simplicity 
and earnest piety of the pirate add luster to 
his exploits. To-day no sentiment could be 
more abhorrent at least outside of Germany. No 
sentiments were e\er more repugnant to true 
religion. 

This entire change of the world's attitude 
towards offensive armaments is one of the 
greatest triumphs of Christianity. There is no 
better evidence of this change than the em- 
phatic manner in which the warring nations 
in Europe disclaim responsibility for begin- 
ning the war; that is, for the offensive use of 
their armaments. On the other hand all nations 
approve of defensive armaments. 

Washington, far in advance of his time, at 
least in the old world, voiced the true principle 
of Christian ethics and statesmanship respect- 
ing war, in the inscription he placed upon his 
three swords still hanging upon the wall at 
Mount Vernon. It reads as follows: ''These 
swords are accompanied with an injunction not 
to unsheathe them for the purpose of shedding 
blood, except it be for self-defence, or the de- 
fence of the country or its rights, and in the 
latter case to keep them unsheathed and to 

[32] 



Offensive and Defensive Armaments 

prefer falling with them in their hands to the 
relinquishment thereof. ' ' 

Defensive Armaments a Necessity 

This necessity will continue so long as na- 
tions are liable to wanton attack and spoliation 
by others. 

All instruments of war however humble are 
armaments. David's sling and five smooth 
stones were the armaments with which he con- 
quered Goliath and put to rout the enemy, 
Canonicus, Sachem of the Narragansetts, sent 
to Miles Standish a bundle of arrows wrapped 
in the skin of a rattlesnake; Captain Standish 
returned the skin stuffed with powder and 
balls. These simple weapons constituted al- 
most the entire armaments of the colonists. In 
1776 Washington's little army, confronting the 
British at Boston, was in inuninent danger 
from the want of powder. At length Washing- 
ton received an armament of one hundred bar- 
rels of powder, and when the curtain rises 
again, Howe and his troops are evacuating 
Boston with a dispatch that only powder can 
inspire. 

The kind and size of defensive armaments 
will depend upon varying conditions. Our great 
forts, our giant Dreadnoughts now being 
equipped with sixteen inch cannon, the largest 
in the world and with a range of sixteen 
miles, and with twice the penetrating power 
of the German howitzers that made havoc of 
[33] 



*'Made in Germany'' 

Belgian forts, afford no better protection 
to-day than did these simple armaments of the 
colonies. 

The necessity for defensive armaments is rec- 
ognized by the Christian Scriptures which con- 
tain our organic law, and upon which our 
political constitutions are founded, and con- 
formity to which, according to Blackstone, 
alone gives validity to human laws. 

The passages of Scripture which are quoted 
as opposed to the principle of armaments may 
be summed up in that one which says, * * Eesist 
not evil." But the same authority says also, 
''Eesist the Devil." Defensive armaments 
alone enable us to ** resist the Devil" in his 
most hideous form of offensive war. 

The same divine authority that said to Peter, 
''Put up thy sword," says to all his disciples, 
"He that hath no sword let him sell his gar- 
ments and buy one ' ' ; that is, it is better to go 
naked and possess a sword, than to be clothed 
without one. 

The ultra-pacifists who decry all armaments 
unqualifiedly are reviving the doctrine of non- 
resistance. This doctrine springs from one lobe 
of the heart acting independently not only of 
the other, but of all the other faculties of the 
mind. It is indefensible. It makes government 
impossible and puts a premium on injustice; 
it rewards violence and punishes virtue; it is 
unnatural, irrational and leads to social 
anarchy. 

[34] 



Offensive and Defensive Armaments 
Defen^sivb Abmaments Hindek War 

The defensive armaments of a nation tend 
to restrain other nations from attacking it. 
To the extent of this restraint defensive 
armaments are a hindrance to war. 

Most of the great armaments of Europe were 
designed for defence only. "What has been their 
effect on war in general? Have they promoted 
peace or war? Peace most assuredly. Pacifists 
are right, however, in demanding disarmament 
of all nations, but they are wrong in demanding 
that one nation shall disarm, leaving itself a 
prey to other armed and predatory nations. 

Modern huge armaments date from about 
1870. Prior to that date wars were far more 
numerous than since. This is a simple histori- 
cal fact. The evolutionist will tell you that 
primitive man, as destitute of weapons as the 
denizens of the forest, waged unceasing war- 
fare. The Temple of Janus at Rome, kept open 
in time of war and closed in time of peace, was 
closed but once in five hundred years. The 
Franco-German war was in 1871, the Crimean 
war in 1854, the Italian war in 1859, the Russo- 
Austrian in 1866, our own civil war in 1861. The 
blood of five million men was poured out in the 
First Empire ; sixty thousand men were killed 
and wounded in our war of 1812; since 1815 
France has had twenty wars not one of which 
was due to modern armaments. Indeed, before 
the era of great armaments wars were almost 

[35] 



"Made in Germany" 

of daily occurrence. It may be truthfully said 
that as armaments have increased wars have 
decreased. 

Other agencies have contributed to this re- 
sult. The spirit of brotherhood abroad in the 
earth, the great and beneficent peace move- 
ments, the Hague conferences, the humanities 
of the Gospel of Christ — all these have helped ; 
but no one can successfully deny that the ten- 
dency of defensive armaments has been to 
hinder war. 

It is claimed that the very possession of de- 
fensive armaments breeds a war spirit. Even 
so, it does not follow that they should be abol- 
ished. The very possession of money or other 
things breeds a tendency to misuse them; but 
the right use of them may more than counter- 
balance this tendency. Pistol toting tends to 
fighting and so far is an evil, but woe to the 
man who disarms himself when all about him 
are armed and some of them avowed robbers. 
The remedy is not to stop one man but all 
men from the evil practice. One writer says 
that ''an army or a navy are no more an 
incitement to war among reasonable men than 
a policeman is an incentive to burglary or 
homicide. ' ' 

If a nation is incited to war by its arma- 
ments, it is also restrained by the armaments 
of the enemy. The incentive and restraint tend 
to counterbalance each other, and were the ten- 
dencies equal, their armaments would neither 

[36] 



Offensive and Defensive Armaments 

conduce to peace nor provoke war. That the 
tendency to restrain is stronger, is historically 
shown by the constantly decreasing number of 
wars since the rise of modern armaments. 

No one more ardently desired peace than 
Washington, but he did not hesitate to say, ' ' To 
be prepared for war is one of the most effective 
ways of preserving peace. ' ' He spoke in view 
of conditions then existing among the nations 
that permitted war upon unoffending people 
for conquest, territorial expansion and plun- 
der. Precisely such is the war Germany is 
now waging upon the other countries of 
Europe. Until these conditions are changed 
any departure from the words of Washington 
is suicidal. 

Offensive Armaments Assure War 

Since offensive and defensive armaments 
differ only in respect to their use, it may be said 
that this is a distinction without a difference. 
On the contrary, the distinction is so vital that 
no intelligent discussion on the subject is pos- 
sible without it. With equal consistency one 
might say that a pistol designed to be put under 
one 's pillow, is to be regarded in the same light 
as when it is designed for murder. 

How can we tell when a nation is designing 
its armaments for offensive war? The answer 
is simple. When such armaments exceed the 
needs for defence. For years Germany has 
been preparing such excessive armaments. 

[37] 



''Made in Germany" 

Some of the reasons for this statement are as 
follows : — 

(1) Her leaders claim that Germany be- 
gan the war with armaments sufficient to carry 
it on for five years. No other nation makes any 
such claim. In fact the allies had not sufficient 
equipment for one month of war. 

(2) She probably has at this present time 
more armaments than Great Britain, France 
and Russia combined, and it may be more than 
all the world besides ; not of a single class like 
warships, but of the total of all instruments of 
war. She is said to have had four and a half 
billion rifle cartridges in stock when the war 
began, enough to depopulate the earth if three 
bullets for each individual could do it. In ad- 
dition to this she had on hand five hundred 
million pounds of explosives. 

(3) She has already supplied large quan- 
tities of munitions of war to Austria and 
Turkey. 

(4) She is actually able with the aid of 
Austria to cope with the three greatest powers 
of Europe. 

(5) Great Britain, France and Eussia, pos- 
sessed at the outbreak of the war with defen- 
sive armaments only, are now buying arms 
from the United States, and Russia is also 
buying from Japan. 

(6) Germany has the Krupp plant for man- 
ufacturing arms which has heretofore exceeded 
in capacity, equipment and efficiency those of 

[38] 



Offensive and Defensive Armaments 

Great Britain, France and Russia, and possibly 
all of Asia, Africa, North and South America 
combined. 

The main plant at Essen occupies 1,200 acres, 
of which 235 are under one roof, employing 
39,000 men. Branches at Rheinhausen, Duis- 
burg, Neuwied and Engers employ 15,000 more. 
The dockyard at Kiel occupies 55 acres and 
employs over 6,000 men. 10,000 are digging 
coal at Annen and Gruson, and 5,000 more are 
mining for iron. This makes a total of 75,000 
employes with a pay roll of $25,000,000 annu- 
ally, which would be nearer $50,000,000 in the 
United States. 

Within the last fifty years this plant has sold 
tens of thousands of guns to fifty different na- 
tions. In all the world nothing like this was 
ever before seen. 

(7) This is not a tithe of the magnitude and 
costliness of the German armaments. Add to 
it her military railroads, arsenals, warships, 
baggage trains, commissariat, motor vehicles, 
Zeppelins, electrics, ambulance wagons, in- 
trenching implements, her vast quantities of 
accoutrements for millions of soldiers, and her 
conscript system forcing every able-bodied man 
into military service in time of peace. 

The point is not that Germany has arma- 
ments, but that their vastness is far in excess of 
her needs for defence, and that they were de- 
signed for aggressive war. Behind these arma- 
ments there is a type of militarism permeating 

[39] 



"Made in Germany" 

the entire social organism, including the church, 
as rampant, malignant and demoniacal as ever 
prevailed in ancient Rome or Sparta. 

(8.) Listen to German leaders and calculate 
the effect of their words upon offensive arma- 
ments. Treitschke said, ''Why talk of found- 
ing colonies ? Let us take Holland, then we shall 
have them ready made . . . Germany with 60,- 
000,000 of virile people should address herself 
to the downfall of England. ' ' Again, Delbruck 
says, ''Germany was bound to expand at the 
expense of England, France and Russia." 
Professor Oswald says, "Germany should 
crush England, break up Russia, and reduce 
France to vassalage." These are not isolated 
but representative declarations and accord per- 
fectly with the vast offensive armaments of 
Germany which made war inevitable. 

Defensive Distinguished fkom Offensive War 

A nation must defend its sovereignty, its ter- 
ritory, its citizens, its property, its sacred 
honor and those rights and privileges upon 
which these depend. 

The aggressor in war is not necessarily the 
nation that first declares war or strikes the first 
blow, but the one that violates the rights of an- 
other nation and takes up arms in support of 
such violation. A violation of rights may be so 
indirect, or so complicated by circumstances, 
that the nature, extent, as well as the fact itself, 
of such violation, may be difficult to determine. 

[40] 



Offensive and Defensive Armaments 

In such case or whenever the nations in dis- 
agreement cannot settle the dispute in a peace- 
able manner, the one refusing the proposal of 
the other to arbitrate the matter and resorting 
to arms, is ordinarily the aggressor. 

It is here assumed that the standards of 
right and wrong that obtain between individ- 
uals and in civilized states, shall be the same 
between nations. Unless we can postulate this, 
we have no foundation for international law; 
unless this single standard can be adopted as 
a sure basis of all international proceedings, 
war is inevitable and peace a dream. A group 
of nations under agreement to act together in 
case of war, when such agreement is made 
known, must be regarded as a single unit in the 
matter of offensive or defensive war. That is, 
the act of one is the act of the group; a war 
upon one or by one is a war upon or by the 
group to which it belongs. If, however, the 
terms of the agreement apply only to defensive 
war, then the aggressor alone is responsible. 

In the present war Italy declined to act with 
Germany and Austria because the triple alliance 
was for defence only, while Germany and Aus- 
tria were waging an offensive war. It is a mat- 
ter for profound gratitude that Italy refused to 
join Germany and Austria in their attack upon 
Belgium. By such refusal she escaped the odi- 
um of Germany and her apostate Chancellor in 
pronouncing a treaty, the most solemn instru- 
ment known to mankind, to be a mere ' ' scrap of 

[41] 



"Made in Germany** 

paper," a sentiment so abhorrent, so ghastly 
in its consequences, that it may well be regarded 
by the civilized world as a second fall of man 
in the Eden of the twentieth century. Belgium 
presents a perfect example of a nation engaged 
in defensive warfare. Germany presents a per- 
fect example of a nation engaged in offensive 
warfare. 

Inckease of Offensive Akmaments by One 
Nation Requikes an Inceease by All 

Simple as this truth is, it is denied or ignored 
by ultra-pacifists. How can we tell whether 
an increase of armaments is for offensive war? 
This should not present a difficult problem for 
diplomacy. Suppose all nations likely to be at 
war with each other are at peace. Now if one 
nation makes the first move to increase her ar- 
maments, beyond a proportionate increase of 
national growth, it means in nine cases out of 
ten sooner or later an aggressive war. Sup- 
pose in addition, this nation, through her lead- 
ers, openly avows her purpose of aggressive 
war, then it is certain the armaments are for 
aggression. Suppose again, that neighboring 
nations shrinking from war and the burden of 
maintaining armaments, request this nation to 
discontinue her excessive increase of arma- 
ments, assuring her of their peaceful intentions, 
and she refuses their requests; this refusal 
points to offensive war. Suppose once more, 
that this nation refuses to join other nations in 

[42] 



Offensive and Defensive Armaments 

the reduction of armaments; such refusal 
means but one thing and that is offensive war. 
There are other signs of the aggressive pur- 
pose of an increase of armaments, such as the 
declarations of leading men, and above all the 
tone and extent of militarism in the nation. 

We yield to none in aversion to war. We 
have been in the midst of its indescribable hor- 
rors and would like to see all armaments sunk 
in the sea, but we are utterly unable to under- 
stand how the nations can dispense with arma- 
ments, while one nation is increasing its arma- 
ments and openly avows its intention of making 
war upon other nations, and reducing them to 
subjection, and that her policy is one of ''blood 
and iron," of conquest and power. 

This is precisely Germany's attitude. She 
has repeatedly refused the request of her neigh- 
bors for a reduction of armaments and kept on 
piling them up, until to-day she is able to defend 
half a dozen Germanics against attacks from 
any source. Neighboring nations must either 
increase their armaments or perish at the hands 
of Germany. There is absolutely no alterna- 
tive. Her leaders loudly proclaim this policy 
of conquest and the principles by which alone 
it can be sustained. "War is in itself a good 
thing," says Bernhardi. "The state is justi- 
fied in making conquests." Weak nations have 
not the same right to live as powerful and vig- 
orous nations." "Might makes right." "Huge 
armaments are in themselves desirable." For 

[43] 



"Made in Germany" 

a generation these diabolical sentiments have 
been taught to the children in German schools. 
Professor Oswald says, '^Germany should crush 
England, break up Russia, and reduce France 
to vassalage." 

When these principles materalize in enor- 
mous armaments and declarations of war 
against neighboring nations, we repeat, the lat- 
ter must either increase their armaments or per- 
ish. One leading writer says, '^We are going 
to destroy England .... and we will not 
rest until we have gained our object." 

It avails nothing for German apologists and 
their American allies to say that these views 
do not represent the German government, while 
they are being carried out to the letter, in the 
most illegal, cruel and inhuman practices of the 
German troops. 

What is the duty of nations whose existence 
is thus threatened, especially when they see the 
most extensive preparations being made to 
carry out this threat! Failure to provide de- 
fensive armaments would be suicide. 

What would now be the condition of the allies 
had they not increased their armaments ? Bel- 
gium is the answer. The object of Germany 
as stated by Professor Oswald would have been 
realized and England "crushed," Russia, 
''broken up," and Prance would be a "vassal" 
at the feet of Germany. Their armaments at 
this moment alone are preserving their liberties 
and their lives. 

[44] 



Offendve and Defensive Armaments 

Suppose Germany wins this war, what of the 
United States? For years Germany's naval 
toast has been, **Der Tag," *'To the Day," 
which means the day when Germany shall em- 
bark upon the conquest, not only of England 
and France, but of the world. Her shibboleth 
is ''World Power or Downfall." The Kaiser 
is God. His brother, Prince Henry of Prussia, 
thus writes him: ''I have but one motive, a de- 
sire to proclaim to the nations the gospel of your 
majesty's sacred person and to preach it to 
those who will listen and to those who will not. ' ' 
Listen to the Kaiser himself : * ' The crown was 
bestowed upon me by the grace of God alone and 
not by the parliaments and meetings and de- 
cisions of the people." And again, blasphe- 
mously paraphrasing the words of Christ, 
' ' One is your Master even Christ and all ye are 
brethren, ' ' he says ' ' Only one is master of this 
country That is I. Who opposes me I will 
crush to pieces. ' ' 

Suppose this Kaiser victorious over the 
countries of Europe, and with his Alexandrian 
motto of world conquest, turns toward the 
United States, will our pacifists cry out. Away 
with armaments ! Dismantle your forts ! Intern 
your ships ; Lie down and with brotherly love 
let the German juggernaut roll over you, crush- 
ing out your liberties, your lives and your re- 
public, the "last effort of divine Providence in 
behalf of the human race ' ' ? 

We have built the Panama Canal at a fabu- 
[45] 



"Made in Germany'' 

lous cost with the primary object of national 
defence. As such it is the greatest piece of ar- 
mament the world has ever seen. We have be- 
fore us a pamphlet by one of our best men 
decrying all armaments and saying, ''We have 
squandered millions of dollars on fortifications 
in the Philippines . . . and we are about to 
squander other millions in Panama. . . . Ar- 
maments are not guarantees of peace ; they are 
not insurance; they are not instruments of 
righteousness or reason .... have faith in 
brotherhood. Believe in love." We do be- 
lieve in love and brotherhood but what does the 
writer mean? Would he really have the Canal 
filled up, or allow a brigand power to rob us of 
it and take possession or put it out of commis- 
sion? Does he regard the money it has already 
cost as well as the money it will have cost for 
protection as "squandered"? In denying that 
armaments ''guarantee peace" does he really 
think that disarmament by the United States 
would "guarantee peace" and "insure" us 
against invasion? Disarmament by one nation 
would not only not "guarantee peace" hut 
would guarantee war hy inviting any nation 
hent on conquest to attack us. 

The millennium will come, but it is not at hand 
nor even in sight. As yet the nations are on a 
competitive, military basis. Competition itself 
has come to mean war. The most military na- 
tion sets the pace that the others must follow 
or perish. So long as a single powerful nation 

[46] 



Offensive and Defensive Armaments 

is free to multiply offensive armaments and 
make war, all other nations will be compelled to 
arm, weaker nations to ally themselves with 
stronger, and alliances, ententes, balances of 
power and spheres of influence will be abso- 
lutely necessary. 

There is, however, one alternative to which 
men are hopefully turning. This is an inter- 
national tribunal to determine disputes, enforce 
decisions and abolish all armaments except such 
as may be necessary for an international police 
force to coerce a recalcitrant nation. This 
method of suppressing evil accords with all hu- 
man and divine laws and is approved by the ex- 
perience of mankind. 

Material and moral forces have now as never 
before reached a point of development and unity 
where they combine to make such a tribunal 
possible. To its accomplishment the United 
States should officially take the lead, bend 
every energy, employ every agency and if need 
be appropriate not merely millions but billions 
of dollars. 

Ultra-pacifists would object to the use of 
armaments by an international police force to 
keep the world's peace, since they decry all 
armaments upon which, in the last analysis, 
such force must rely. We cannot agree with 
them. A policeman relying on brotherhood or 
love to stop a thief or stay the hand of a mur- 
derer would be regarded as demented. 

When all Germany is singing, ''The World 

[47] 



"Made in Germany*' 

with Germany on Top," which means with the 
Kaiser as king and ''blood and iron" as prime 
ministers, it would be criminal folly for 
the United States to abolish her defensive 
armaments. 

Defensive armaments are not condemned in 
the Scriptures. Christ himself approved of de- 
fensive weapons. He said, "I came not to 
bring peace but a sword," that is, conflict-war 
between eternally hostile principles. Christ 
was the "Captain" of "good soldiers" as well 
as "Prince of Peace." The peace He promises 
is not acquiescence in wickedness hut victory 
over it. That peace is coming, but at present 
the fight is on. 

Whenever armaments are used for the sake 
of power, conquest, revenge or the lust of 
"blood and iron," they are offensive arma- 
ments. On the other hand, when used for the 
protection of a nation's rights they are defen- 
sive armaments. 

Governments not Influenced by the Cost op 
Armaments 

Arrays of figures showing the enormous cost 
of armaments in the different nations are start- 
ling. The last year before the war Germany 
spent $294,000,000, France $311,000,000, Eussia 
$440,000,000 and England $480,000,000. All the 
nations together, it is estimated, spent about 
$3,000,000,000 on their armies and navies. The 
withdrawal of men from productive labor is 

[48] 



Offensive and Defensive Armaments 

said to have cost $3,000,000,000 more, making 
a total of $6,000,000,000 spent each year on 
armaments. Counting at the rate of sixty per 
minute, eight hours per day, and three hun- 
dred and sixty-five days per year, it would take 
one man six hundred years to count this sum. 
This is the cost on a peace footing. 

We are told that Germany and Russia are 
now spending $15,000,000 a day each, France 
and Austria $10,000,000 each and England at 
the same rate, to carry on the war. We cannot 
realize these figures nor is it necessary. No- 
body is really influenced by them. No govern- 
ment gives them very serious attention. 

The cost of armaments is not a tithe of what 
the nations spend for luxuries in countless 
directions. The play-house and music bill, the 
tobacco and liquor bill of any nation far ex- 
ceeds the cost of its armaments, although the 
latter is regarded as a thousand times more 
important. If every German laborer carries a 
soldier on his back, he also carries drones and 
luxury mongers. 

No, the cost of armaments, however tremen- 
dous, has scarcely a feather's weight with any 
government. No matter how burdensome it may 
be, or how exacting the conscription laws, or 
how they grind the people least able to bear 
the burden, the matter of cost will never cause 
the reduction of armaments so long as nations 
depend upon them for existence. 

The real objection to armaments is the ob- 
[49] 



"Made in Germany" 

jection to war itself. Armaments are a symbol 
of war. War means not only cost in money, 
but suffering, wounds and death, lamentations 
unutterable, and woe. 

In the social evolution a stage has been 
reached when needless human suffering will 
not be tolerated. This is the fruit of Christian- 
ity. It has been a long time in coming. It is 
due to the new sense of universal brotherhood 
and love. It has come to stay. It recognizes 
war as its arch enemy. "War therefore must 
go. But its one prop is armaments. Then 
doMTi with armaments of every description! 
The logic is imperfect, but the sentiment is 
divine and we will work for this consumma- 
tion. Meanwhile let us live and not die. While 
struggling toward the harbor let us not scuttle 
the ship. 

It is often said that when the nation's money 
and credit are exhausted it cannot get arma- 
ments and must stop fighting. No mistake 
could be greater. A self-supporting nation like 
Eussia, for example, can wage war indefinitely 
without money or foreign credit. Powerful as 
these are they are not indispensable. A nation 
may live by exchange of goods or payment in 
kind. It may use any commodity as a medium 
of exchange among its own people. Nations 
have lived thus in the past. Such industries 
as would sustain life and supply arms could be 
carried on without money. Money is a con- 
venience not a necessity either in peace or in 

[50] 



Offensive and Defensive Armaments 

war. Mexico and Turkey show how nations 
may carry on war long after their money is 
practically exhausted. How large should be a 
nation's defensive armaments'? "What is pre- 
paredness? That depends. Many factors enter 
into the problem. The circumstances of each 
nation are to be considered. 

The United States is now anxiously asking 
this question. It is not a partisan one. We 
believe our statesmanship at Washington will 
answer it wisely, so as to ensure our own safety 
on the one hand and on the other, assure the 
world of our supreme love of peace and eternal 
hatred of aggressive war. 



[51] 



CHAPTER III 
GERMAN MILITARISM 

If militarism has heretofore meant a dispo- 
sition to provide armaments for national de- 
fence together with the exaltation of military 
affairs, it has been gradually acquiring another 
meaning more in accordance with its essential 
character. By militarism we now understand 
the martial spirit, or the fighting propensity 
together with the desire and effort to supply 
all the means of gratifying it. It is essentially 
the love of war, the murderous disposition, the 
savage instinct, the lust of blood. 

All these qualities can be veneered with civ- 
ilization and refinement. They are perfectly at 
home in the drawing room and sit complacently, 
prayer-book in hand, in a partially paganized 
church. 

Militarism has no desire to be defined in this 
manner. The Christian religion, if anything, 
is a religion of brotherly love. Militarism is 
hatred. Christianity has made such strides 
within a century' and now looms so large in 
the earth, that militarism dares no longer face 
it and so hides its hideous features under vari- 
ous masks, such as national defence, the mili- 

[52] 



German Militarism 

tary virtues, preservation of peace, impending 
danger of attack from a foreign power, etc. 

Germany is the one exception to this state- 
ment. She has the distinction of being the 
only nation that now extols militarism, not only 
as a virtue but as the corner stone of her na- 
tional greatness and glory. This is the cause 
of the war. 

Jingoes in other countries are comparatively 
few. In Germany militarism is an institution 
of the state and the paramount one. Germany 
has been almost the sole promoter of it in 
Europe. Russia has always followed, never pre- 
ceded, Germany in the matter of armaments. 
Temporizing writers seek to spread the plague 
about equally over the different nations, but all 
Germany rebukes them. Dr. Karl Lamprect of 
the university of Leipsic says, "Our great 
trump cards are Luther, Goethe and Kant. 
The Prussian kings to be sure were heroes . . . 
and have given their country a great doctrine, 
the doctrine of militarism." 

In view of such admissions how can an Amer- 
ican write as follows ? * * There is as much mili- 
tarism in covering the sea with dreadnoughts 
as there is in covering the land with armies." 
Is it true that England is to be thus ranked 
with Germany in the matter of armaments? 
Let us see. 

(1) Neither dreadnoughts nor armies nor 
their size necessarily indicate militarism. It 
is the spirit and purpose behind them. If they 
[53] 



''Made in Germany'* 

are for defence only, the greatest armaments 
do not imply the least militarism; if they are 
for offensive war they imply militarism alone. 
Behind England's dreadnoughts there was a 
desperate effort to keep the peace ; behind Ger- 
many's armies, a determined effort to make 
war. 

(2) England's insular position and posses- 
sions required all her dreadnoughts for defence, 
while Germany's armies are ten times what are 
needed for defence. 

(3) In view of the extent of England's 
coasts and colonies to be protected as compared 
with those of Germany, England is not as well 
equipped with dreadnoughts as Germany. 

(4) England condemns militarism as devil- 
ish, while Germany praises it as divine. 

There are militarists in every country but 
they are relatively a negligible quantity, while 
in Germany they completely dominate not only 
the government, but all social institutions. We 
will consider militarism, therefore, as it is ex- 
emplified in Germany, where it has had its most 
perfect development. 

The Militarism of the Kaiser 

Caesar Augustus changed the Eoman Eepub- 
lic into a monarchy and concentrated all power 
in himself. Kaiser is the German for Caesar. 
Caesarism is military despotism. Caesar, after 
a period of peace, suddenly exclaimed, ''Varus, 
give me back my legions!" So the Kaiser, 

[54] 



German Militarism 

after twenty-five years of peace, every moment 
of which has been spent in preparing for war, 
suddenly exclaims, ''Bethmann Hollweg, give 
me my legions; and as for you 'Barbarous 
Eussia,' I give you twelve hours in which to 
throw up your hands ! " It is not an accident 
that the Kaiser is called ''The Over War 
Lord. ' ' Aggressive war is militarism in bloom. 

The Kaiser glories in militarism. This war 
was begun by him. "The Truth About Ger- 
many," by eleven' representative Germans says, 
"The Kaiser had the moral courage to assume 
the responsibility of beginning the conflict." 
Again they say, "We are bound to follow our 
Kaiser because he symbolizes and represents 
the nation." Diplomatic correspondence pre- 
ceding the war shows conclusively that one 
word from the Kaiser could have prevented it. 
No one questions this. 

The Kaiser seriously insisted that the war be 
localized ; that is, that the fifty million elephant, 
Austria, and the five million mouse, Servia, be 
left to fight it out themselves! Again, when 
Eussia asks him to restrain his ally, Austria, 
he artfully assumes that his "mediatorial of- 
fices" between Eussia and Austria have been 
requested, when the fact was he had been ad- 
dressed as one of the contending parties him- 
self. His repeated references to "the localiza- 
tion of the war" and to his own "media- 
torial offices" are masterpieces of diplomatic 
buffoonery. 

[55] 



"Made in Germany" 

No doubt the Kaiser's peace sentiments are 
sincere, but his war sentiments are more sin- 
cere. Psychologically he is a nondescript. He 
is a sincere believer in contradictory opposites. 
It is a matter of history that to insult England 
in the Boer war he sent a message of sympathy 
to Kruger, and then shortly after, followed it 
by presenting to Queen Victoria a plan for sub- 
jugating the Boers. He champions Christian- 
ity, and then goes to Constantinople, seeks out 
the arch enemy of Christianity, Abdul Hamed, 
addresses him as ' ' Dear Friend, ' ' looks into his 
eyes lusterless from debauchery, listens sympa- 
thetically to his lying lips and clasps the 
monster 's hand dripping with the blood of thou- 
sands of massacred Armenians. In his Chris- 
tian zeal he makes a pious pilgrimage to the 
mosque of Damascus and places there a gift on 
which is inscribed his admiration of Saladin, 
Islam's great warrior. One day he says, ''I 
hope you will always take delight in handling 
the duelling blade. The real meaning of our 
duels is often misunderstood by the general 
public." The next day he says, ''It is my will 
and pleasure that more vigorous steps be taken 
to prevent duels." Protesting his desire for 
peace, he precipitates this war with Russia. He 
has stoutly declaimed against the Yellow race, 
while now he secretly instigates the Sultan to 
proclaim a "Holy War" against his own race 
and religion. Note another exhibition of his 
mental and moral deformity: it is officially 

[56j 



German Militarism 

stated that after kneeling down and praying be- 
side the graves of many brave German soldiers, 
he rose and exclaimed, ''I did not want it ! I did 
not want it!" A little later he said, "The 
sword was forced into my hands by myself, — 
by the Germany that I created by my inspira- 
tion." When his soldiers were sent against 
China, this Christian Emperor charged them to 
take no prisoners and give no quarter. His 
exact words were, ^^When you encounter the 
enemy you will defeat him. No quarter shall 
he given. No prisoners shall he taken. Let 
all who fall into your hands he at your 
mercy." 

This is militarism with a vengeance. The 
murderous disposition, the lust of blood of the 
Eoman and middle ages, which, under the be- 
nign influence of Christianity, the world had 
so far overcome as to feel that no public ap- 
proval of them would ever again pollute official 
lips, is boldly approved by the Kaiser and 
enjoined upon his soldiers. No other voice 
however imperial has in these latter days so 
outraged the public opinion of the world. 

The most serious thing respecting these ut- 
terances of the Kaiser is his belief that they are 
inspired by God. Witness the following to his 
army. "Rememher that the German people are 
the chosen of God. On me, as German Em- 
peror, the spirit of God has descended. I am 
his weapon; his sword; his Vicegerent. Woe 
to the disobedient. Death to cowards and un- 

[57] 



"Made in Germany'^ 

believers!" In the same tyrannical, blasphe- 
mous and brutal strain he charges his troops 
in Poland. ''I am Jehovah's sword. Woe and 
death to those who resist my will and to all who 
do not believe my mission. The enemies of the 
German people shall perish." 

This militaristic despot and blood-thirsty 
tyrant, claiming like his prototype, Caligula, 
divine authority and honors, is the head of a 
nation that we have all along supposed to 
be civilized and Christian, and presents a 
spectacle incomprehensible to the average 
American. 

A friend of the writer was in Berlin in 1905. 
A great festival was held at which the Kaiser 
was present and made an address. The next 
morning the papers reported the Kaiser's 
speech and the streets resounded with cries of 
''Hurrah! the day is at hand! Keep your 
swords sharpened and be ready!" Yes, Mr. 
Kaiser, in the expressive language of the peo- 
ple, there is some militarism here. 

There is of course a better side to the Em- 
peror. He is not all bad. After Satan had 
been soundly berated at a prayer meeting, an 
amiable old lady remarked, "Well, I don't sup- 
pose the Devil is as bad as he might be!" We 
are assured that the Kaiser has a franlc, open 
countenance, a kindly disposition and other 
attractive qualities. This may not be doubted. 
He may have the susceptibility of Cain, the 
musical talent of Nero and be the treasurer of 

[58] 



German Militarism 

the church like Judas Iscariot, and still, by his 
all-devouring militarism, be the arch murderer 
of the human race and guilty of the blood of 
his fellow men, to a greater extent than Alex- 
ander, Csesar, Charlemagne and Napoleon com- 
bined. Be it remembered that not only have 
hecatombs already perished, but all Europe is 
now trembling beneath the tread of thirteen 
million armed men bent on slaughtering each 
other; and be it further remembered that no 
German apologist of the war, of which there 
are hundreds, not even the Kaiser himself, has 
dared deny that he and he alone could by a 
single word have prevented this crime, the most 
ghastly save that of Calvary that the earth has 
witnessed. 

MiLITAEISM IN THE AeMY 

A judge in passing sentence of death on a 
murderer has no desire to kill, but is filled with 
pity. "With eyes filled with tears and voice 
choking with emotion, Chief Justice Shaw of 
Massachusetts pronounced sentence of death 
upon Professor John C. Webster. In killing 
their fellow men soldiers unmoved by a 
sense of pity and brotherhood are murderers. 
Organized murder is more dangerous to 
society than private murder and hence more 
abhorrent, and yet it is not only excused but 
applauded. 

In spite of the hardening tendencies of war, 
multitudes have engaged in it not only without 

[59] 



"Made in Germany" 

malice but with kindly feeling toward the 
enemy. Such soldiers are actuated by a sense 
of duty, by devotion to a righteous cause or 
to great principles more sacred to them than 
their own lives. Such was the case in our rev- 
olutionary war and in the war to abolish slavery 
and save the republic. 

At the very antipodes of these sentiments 
stands the militarism of the 35,000 army officers 
that constitute the military oligarchy of Ger- 
many. Bismarck, whose influence began to be 
felt about the middle of the last century, may 
be called the father of German militarism. He 
was a great man, if a man can be called great, 
who at the close of his career mournfully says, 
**I have inaugurated great wars. I have been 
the cause of death to multitudes and of suffer- 
ing and misery to millions of my fellow men. ' ' 
Bismarck admits that he brought on the 
Franco-Prussian war of 1871 by changing the 
famous Ems telegram. When he received it 
he was dining with von Moltke and Roon. He 
read it to them. They were so dejected that 
they ceased to eat and pushed their chairs back 
from the table. Then Bismarck, seeing their 
dejection, asked if they were thoroughly pre- 
pared for immediate invasion of France. He 
well knew that Prussia had long been anticipat- 
ing and preparing for it. They answered, 
''Yes." Bismarck then took a pen and so al- 
tered the telegram that he said it would *'act 
like a red flag to the Gallic bull." So magical 

[60] 



German Militarism 

was the effect upon von Moltke that raising 
his glass, he said, *'If I am permitted to lead 
our armies into France, the Devil may take my 
old carcass afterwards and do what he wishes 
with it." Roon, equally elated, exclaimed, 
* ' Our God will not desert us ! " Murder, slaugh- 
ter, the blood of their fellow men, were thus the 
supreme longing of von Moltke, and Roon 
invoked God's blessing upon the butchery. 

No one now doubts that the Franco-Prussian 
war was made in Germany. Bismarck admits 
that he altered the Ems telegram. It was 
forgery and the most damnable recorded in 
history. Bismarck was proud of the perfidious 
act. He presents to us the perfect type of 
German militarism. 

Within four years after the conclusion of the 
war, France had paid the enormous indemnity 
of one billion dollars imposed by Bismarck, and 
wonderfully restored her commerce and pros- 
perity. Upon this Bismarck prepared to attack 
her again with the brutal remark that ''This 
time we will bleed her white." 

Von Moltke was Bismarck's spokesman. He 
had the fighting propensity, the lust of blood. 
His whole life was spent in killing and devising 
means to kill. At first the Kurds in Egypt 
were his victims; then the Danes and after- 
wards the French and Austrians. After every 
great slaughter he received fresh laurels from 
his murderous countrymen and was going 
higher and higher when suddenly he was 

[61] 



"Made in Germany" 

claimed by his Satanic Majesty to whom he had 
consigned his ''Old Carcass" when once he had 
drunk the blood of Frenchmen. Berlin, even 
with its shocking glorification of war, is dis- 
graced by a monument surmounted with a 
life-sized figure of this barbarous German 
butcher. 

The ''Zabern incident" illustrates the inso- 
lent and cruel spirit of militarism in the Ger- 
man army. 

At the end of the Franco-Prussian war, the 
treaty of Frankfort, May 10, 1871, tore the 
province of Alsace-Lorraine from France and 
annexed it to Germany. After forty years of 
separation the great majority of the people 
still love France and long to return to her gov- 
ernment. They have been exasperated at the 
harsh and oppressive rule of the Germans and 
especially at the intolerable insolence and in- 
sults of the German soldiers. 

Zabern is a manufacturing town of 10,000 
people and is twenty miles from the French 
line. In October, 1913, the German garrison 
was under the command of Col. von Eeuter. 
A twenty-year old lieutenant, von Forstner, 
insulted the French flag and said the French 
foreign legion was ''Good enough for German 
deserters. ' ' He called the Alsatians ' ' Wackes, ' ' 
a most opprobrious name, and ' ' offered two dol- 
lars and fifty cents to every German soldier 
who would run his bayonet through any civilian 
who insulted him." His conduct created great 

[62] 



German Militarism 

excitement. Women and children came out to 
see what he was like and pointed at him. Did 
Col. von Eeuter reprimand this lieutenant? On 
the contrary he told him to use his sword the 
next time he was insulted and failing this he 
would be court-martialed. The town was now 
so stirred up that Col. von Eeuter, in order 
to get all power into his own hands, and against 
the protest of Herr Mahl, the sub-prefect of 
Zabern, proclaimed martial law. He at once 
arrested twenty innocent citizens. The resent- 
ment increased. 

On November 26, Lieutenant Schad, while 
intoxicated, at the head of a few soldiers, 
charged on a group of children and arrested 
a number of citizens who happened to be pass- 
ing ; the charge against one being that he hissed 
at the army when the fact was he was merely 
whistling. 

On November 28, some school boys jeered at 
a squad of soldiers who then charged upon the 
boys. The boys got away, but the soldiers 
arrested everylDody in sight, including a fire- 
man who had rushed to the door at the noise. 
Twenty-seven persons innocent of any offence 
were imprisoned over night in a cold basement. 
The sub-prefect again protested to the Colonel 
that he was exceeding his authority. 

On December 2, Lieutenant von Forstner was 
jeered at by some children. He ordered his 
men to seize them but they caught only a lame 
cobbler. Lieutenant von Forstner drew his 

[63] 



"Made in Germany" 

sword and struck the poor cobbler over the 
head, cutting a gash five inches long. 

The uproar was now so great that the noise 
reached the Reichstag. A vote of censure by 
two hundred and ninety-three to fifty-four was 
passed against the officers at Zabern. Officers 
Renter and Schad were tried and acquitted. 
Lieutenant von Forstner was sentenced to 
forty-three days imprisonment. On appeal this 
sentence was promptly revoked on the ground 
that he had not sharpened his sword before 
he slashed the cobbler's head! It will be 
noted that the act of the Reichstag had not a 
feather's weight with the military oligarchy. 
The Crown Prince congratulated the brutal 
officer. 

This is the "Zabern incident." It illustrates 
the character of German militarism and the 
feeling of the German officers toward the civil- 
ians. It kindled a flame of indignation through- 
out Alsace-Lorraine and France. 

To show that the incident was not exceptional 
in character but representative, we will add that 
Rosa Luxemberg, inunediately after the occur- 
rence, declared in print that cruelties commit- 
ted by the officers occurred daily. For this she 
was prosecuted by the government. Thereupon 
the socialists presented thirty-two thousand cer- 
tified cases of recent acts of cruelty and over 
one thousand witnesses. 

The refusal of Germany to reduce armaments 
when requested by the nations now associated 

[64] 



German Militansm 

as Allies shows Germany's responsibility for 
modern militarism. Militarism finds expres- 
sion in organized and legalized murder by means 
of armaments. Armaments, however, designed 
solely for defence have not the slightest mili- 
tarism behind them. Such was the case with 
Belgium. Certain writers tell us that by main- 
taining armaments all the warring nations dis- 
play militarism and are responsible for the 
war. The plausible phrase is, *'We will not 
undertake to distribute the blame; all are 
guilty." Nothing could be more unjust or 
contrary to the facts. 

Imagine a judge saying, because a man used 
weapons to fight off a burglar, *'We will not 
undertake to distribute the blame in this case, 
as both parties were engaged in fighting!" 
Germany alone with her cat's-paw, Austria, is 
responsible for this war. Germany alone was 
the aggressor. She alone was fully prepared 
for it. She alone began it while all the Allies 
were pleading with her to keep the peace. 
"What is her object? Leading Germans answer, 
** First Paris then London," then Petrograd, 
then Rome, then Constantinople, then Washing- 
ton. Foolish? Not to Germany. For years the 
toast in her navy has been ''Der Tag," to The 
Day, when she enters upon the conquest of the 
world. Absurd? Not to Germany. Her fore- 
most men do not deny it. Moreover, they as- 
sure us, that when Germany embarks, as she 
has now done, upon the conquest of the world, 

[65] 



"Made in Germany'* 

it will be on her part a strictly defensive war ! 
Thus the end of the world for veracity and 
common sense would seem to have come for 
Germany. 

Turn now to the Allies. Their armaments 
do not indicate the slightest militarism. The 
armaments of Germany indicate nothing but 
militarism. If Germany or any other powerful 
nation increased its armaments with the avowed 
purpose of conquest, other nations were com- 
pelled, however reluctantly, to follow suit. This 
is precisely what has happened. Germany has 
forced other nations to build up great arma- 
ments in self-defence. Take a late example. 
In the Spring of 1913, Germany increased her 
standing army by about 700,000 men. What 
for? Nobody had injured Germany or threat- 
ened her. France looked upon this as a direct 
menace to her republic, and the world now sees 
that France was right. Can any one blame 
France, when, two months later, she increased 
the time of military service from two to three 
years, thus increasing the size of her army to 
meet that of Germany! How did Germany 
regard this? She denounced it as ''a provo- 
cation that ought not to be endured. ' ' 

Germany has repeatedly refused the request 
of all the Allies for a reduction of armaments. 

On February 2, 1870, France asked Germany 
for a simultaneous reduction of armaments. 
She made the request through Lord Clarendon, 
British Foreign Secretary, who wrote Germany 

[66] 



German Militarism 

as follows: '*It is in the general interests of 
Europe, of peace and of humanity, that I desire 
to invite the attention of Count Bismarck to 
the enormous standing armies that now afflict 
Europe — a state of things that now withdraws 
millions of hands from productive industry and 
heavily taxes the people . . . that no thought- 
ful man can contemplate without sorrow and 
alarm, for this system is cruel, it is out of har- 
mony with the civilization of our age, and it is 
pregnant with danger." 

How did Germany receive this overture? 
Without a moment's hesitation, Bismarck re- 
jected the proposal. It was really the proposal 
of England as well as of France. 

Sir Edward Cook in ''How Britain Strove 
for Peace," tells of her efforts to allay German 
militarism as follows. In 1895, England sought 
an alliance with Germany. ''The Salisbury 
cabinet was returned to power and showed a 
marked desire for a rapprochement with Ger- 
many. The stumbling-block was the new ambi- 
tion of "William II to grasp the trident." Any 
entente between Germany and England would 
have tended to allay German militarism by a 
reduction of naval armaments which laid a 
tremendous tax upon both nations. 

Again in 1911, Herr von Rath, Councillor of 
Legation, wrote as follows : ' ' To-day it cannot 
be denied that England strove in the first in- 
stance for a political rapprochement with Ger- 
many and that Edward VII pursued this policy 

[67] 



"Made in Germany'' 

as soon as he came to the throne." These 
failed, says Sir Valentine Chirol, because Ger- 
many demanded an alliance to break the Mon- 
roe Doctrine to which England would not 
consent. 

In 1898 Russia proposed to Germany and 
England a naval reduction. Germany again 
not only refused but increased her navy. 

In 1906 Great Britain proposed a naval re- 
duction but Germany refused to consider it. 

Again in 1907, Sir Campbell-Bannerman, 
British Prime Minister, appealed to Germany 
for a naval reduction. The appeal was met by 
the refusal of Germany even to take part in 
a general discussion. 

Once more in 1908, Edward VII visited the 
Kaiser and tried to make an Anglo-German 
agreement to reduce naval armaments. Again 
Germany refused. Four observations are now 
in order : — 

(1) All the Allies have striven for a series 
of years for an alliance with Germany to allay 
her militarism, by a naval reduction. 

(2) Germany has refused every such over- 
ture. She has not only made no proposal her- 
self, but has refused even to take part in a 
general discussion of the subject. 

(3) The Allies at length clearly understood 
the position of Germany, viz: that she gloried 
in that execrable thing called militarism 
and was only waiting for an opportunity to 
display it. 

[68] 



German Militarism 

(4) That man who says of the warring na- 
tions, ''One is just as guilty of militarism as 
another," or, ''We cannot distribute the blame 
for this war," or, "All alike have trusted 
to armaments to keep the peace," is either 
ignorant of the facts or an apologist for 
crime. 

The truth is, no nation has trusted to arma- 
ments to keep the peace. On the contrary Ger- 
many has trusted to armaments to make war, 
while the Allies have trusted to them as a means 
of preserving their existence. 

The essential nature of militarism is illus- 
trated in the treatment of the Hereros of South 
Africa by the Germans. A government expert 
on colonization was recently called upon to 
instruct the Eeichstag. He said, ' ' The Hereros 
must be compelled to work, and to work with- 
out compensation and in return for their food 
only. Forced labor for years is only a just 
punishment, and at the same time it is the best 
method of training them. The feelings of 
Christianity and philanthropy, with which the 
missionary works, must for the present be re- 
pudiated with all energy." 

Ten years ago General von Trotha, the Ger- 
man Governor, issued a proclamation as fol- 
lows : — ' ' The Herero people must now leave the 
land. If it refuses I shall compel it with the 
gun. Within the German frontier every Herero 
with or without weapon, with or without cattle, 
will be shot. I shall take charge of no more 

[69] 



''Made in Germany" 

women and children, but shall drive them back 
to their people or let them be shot. ' ' 

The result of this brutal order, says Dr. W. 
H. Griffith Thomas, was that "many thousands 
of them were slain, and thousands more were 
driven into the desert, where they perished of 
hunger and thirst. And yet they are described 
by a reputable writer as intelligent, vigorous, 
industrious, alert and adaptable." 

Poland has experienced much the same cruel 
and inhuman treatment at the hands of the 
Germans. It is true that other nations, espe- 
cially Russia, have been guilty, but for the most 
part the cases are few and exceptional, whereas 
it is the cumulative aspect of the brutal qual- 
ities of German militarism that gives it its 
ghastly distinction. 

Another feature of German militarism now 
commands the indignant attention of the civil- 
ized world. It is the reversion to barbarous 
methods of warfare. 

Once, long ago, prisoners of war were killed 
or enslaved, women and children outraged and 
slaughtered, civilians put to death, private 
property confiscated or destroyed, and towns 
and cities reduced to ashes. 

Gradually certain rules of warfare mitigat- 
ing its horrors were adopted by all civilized 
nations. Prisoners were spared and exchanged, 
women and children were protected, notice 
to non-combatants to leave preceded the bom- 
bardment of towns and cities, civilians 

[70] 



German Militarism 

were unmolested and private property was 
respected. 

These humane conditions indicate a mighty- 
triumph of Christian civilization; not indeed 
the final goal which is the abolition of war, but 
vast strides in that direction. 

But now comes Germany like a monstrous 
dragon with crested head, scaly armor and ter- 
rible claws, and wantonly tramples upon 
these merciful conditions and boldly reverts 
to the cruel practices of the barbarian and the 
savage. 

Among these practices of constant recurrence 
thus far in the war are the killing of civilians, 
burning and sacking of towns and cities, or 
assessing enormous sums of money upon them 
and demanding hostages in pledge of payment, 
bombardment of unfortified places, dropping of 
bombs from air craft and strewing floating 
mines upon the open sea. 

Killing, Bukning and Plundeeing 

An illustration of German relapse to bar- 
barism is seen in their treatment of captured 
towns and cities. They have made a charnel 
house of Belgium. Churches, schools, houses 
and hospitals are in ruins. Entire villages are 
wiped out. In Louvain one-third of all the 
buildings are destroyed; among them 1,074 
dwellings. In the suburbs 1,823 houses are 
burned. Cathedrals and works of art of price- 
less value are destroyed. The Rheims Cathe- 
[71] 



"Made in Germany'' 

dral was not spared. This monument of medi- 
aeval faith and art, of surpassing beauty and 
grandeur, held sacred by all the world, was 
laid in partial ruins by the invaders. 

''In the Louvain group of communes one 
hundred and seventy-six persons, men and 
women, old men and sucklings, rich and poor, 
in health and sickness, were shot or burned." 
The case of Louvain illustrates that of many 
other places. This is not war since the foe 
had been vanquished. It is butchery, and the 
blood of the slain calls aloud from the ground 
to the God of justice. 

The denial of these acts of savagery only 
adds lying to cruelty. They accord perfectly 
with the type of militarism of which Germany 
boasts. 

Major-General von Disfurth writes, '^We are 
and must he barbarians. For my part I hope 
that in this war we have merited the title of 
barbarians." 

Before showing how this "hope" is being 
realized, let us say that we do not overlook the 
kind-hearted, peace-loving disposition of the 
great mass of the German people. We admit 
the admirable qualities of the Kaiser and the 
sincerity of many German apologists, and we 
dismiss, as not proved, the charges and counter 
charges by Germans and Belgians of certain 
atrocities, such as the cutting off the ears and 
noses and putting out the eyes of the wounded ; 
but all this has nothing to do with the spirit 

[72] 



German Militarism 

and practice of the brutal militarism of the 
army and the military oligarchy in absolute 
control of the treatment of captured cities. 

We have before us copies of proclamation 
after proclamation, issued by the Germans in 
Belgium, giving the exact words, dates and 
official signatures. One of them posted in Has- 
selt on August 17, 1914, says, *'In cases of 
civilians shooting on the German army, a third 
of the male population will be shot": that is, 
for the action of a half -crazed man trying to 
protect his home and for which the people 
are in no way responsible, one-third of the 
men and boys of the city will be summarily 
shot! This not only violates the laws of war, 
but is expressly forbidden by the Hague 
convention. 

A few patriotic Belgians tried to defend their 
homes in Ardenne. Listen now to General von 
Buelow, commander. *'It was with my consent 
that the General had the whole place burned 
and about one hundred shot." The inhabitants 
say that more than two hundred were shot, 
while four hundred have mysteriously disap- 
peared, and all the houses were burned down 
for a distance of more than eight miles beyond 
the town. 

At Namur on August 25, a proclamation was 
posted which said, ''Every street will be occu- 
pied by a German guard who will take ten 
hostages for each street. If there is any rising 
the hostages will be shot." 

[73] 



"Made in Germany" 

On August 27, General von Buelow imposed 
upon the town of Wavre $600,000 and said, 
''The town of Wavre will be set on fire 
and destroyed if payment is not made when 
due. ' ' 

These are samples of proclamations posted 
in many places. They are plain historical facts 
which any one can verify. They are so contrary 
to the rules of civilized warfare, so cruel, blood- 
thirsty and devilish, that all Christendom and 
all decent heathendom should hang their heads 
in speechless shame and indignation. Thus the 
militarism of the German army converts it 
into ''A horde of barbarians and a band of 
incendiaries. ' ' 

Leading Germans say that Belgian civilians 
fired on and otherwise assaulted German troops 
and the severe measures of the latter were only 
in self-defence. Three things are to be said in 
answer :— 

(1) The Hague convention says, Captured 
towns and cities shall not he punished or held 
responsible for the acts of private citizens 
toward their captors. 

(2) ^'German law expressly requires Ger- 
man civilians to attack and harass an invader 
by every form of night and secret attack/' 
How then can it be a crime for Belgian civilians 
to treat invaders exactly as Germany com- 
mands her citizens to treat invaders? On 
what ground can Bernstorf, Dernberg and 
Co. justify these outrages by saying that 



German Militarism 

"The Belgians got only what they de- 
served!" "Out of thine own mouth will I 
judge thee. ' ' 

(3) Belgian civilians did not fire on the 
invaders. Even should there be an exception, 
the charge in general is false. Repeatedly has 
Germany declared its war policy to be, to loot, 
to burn, to murder. "Every act of whatever 
nature committed hy our troops for the pur- 
pose of discouraging , defeating and destroy- 
ing our enemies is a brave act and a good 
deed.'' 

So speaks Major General von Disfurth. 
So speak, only a hundredfold louder, the 
many authenticated acts of the German 
army. 

BOMBAEDMENT OF UNFORTIFIED PlACES 

The disregard of recognized rules of war is 
shown by the German navy in the bombard- 
ment of unfortified towns and cities. 

The Hague convention says, "The bombard- 
ment by naval forces of undefended ports, 
towns, villages, dwellings or buildings is for- 
bidden." In all cases previous notice should 
be given that civilians may escape from the 
danger zone. 

In spite of the Hague convention a German 
squadron on December 16, 1914, made a raid 
on the English coast towns of Scarborough, 
Whitby and Hartlepool. The latter is a com- 
mercial port with light defences and may be 

[75] 



"Made in Germany'* 

legitimately attacked, but Scarborough and 
Whitby are seaside resorts without defence. 
The Germans stealing up in a dense fog and 
without a moment's notice rained upon the 
inhabitants their death-dealing missiles. One 
hundred persons, mostly civilians, were killed 
and three hundred wounded. Of the killed 
seventy-seven were in Hartlepool, seventeen in 
Scarborough and fourteen in Whitby. Among 
the wounded were many women and children. 
One infant of four months had its skull broken 
while in its mother's arms. Germany was fran- 
tic with delight at this fiendish exploit against 
defenceless towns. She regarded it as a great 
naval achievement and applauded these slayers 
of women and babies as "Heroes." 

BOMBAEDMENT FROM THE AlR 

The same rule applies to Zeppelins and aero- 
planes as to warships. It matters not whether 
the bombardment is from the water or the air. 
Unfortified places are exempt and if fortified, 
civilians are entitled to notice. This novel 
mode of warfare seems to be regarded as legit- 
imate. Bombs may be dropped upon the 
enemy's troops, forts, arsenals, warships and 
all other armaments, but not upon unfortified 
towns and non-combatants. This is forbidden 
by the rules of war and the common conscience 
oif mankind. 

In defiance of these rules the Germans have 
dropped bombs upon many unfortified towns 

[76] 



German Militarism 

and cities and killed and wounded hundreds of 
men, women and children. A single attack of 
these raiding air craft illustrates their general 
character. On January 19, 1915, the Germans 
made an aerial raid upon England, attacking 
Yarmouth, Cromer and other towns. They 
came in the night and the darkness was so thick 
that but few saw them. The royal residence 
at Sandringham was specially marked for de- 
struction. In Yarmouth several workingmen's 
homes were destroyed as also other buildings. 
Three harmless non-combatants were killed and 
others wounded. On another occasion Zeppe- 
lins on a still night dropped a few bombs into 
the streets of Antwerp and killed perhaps 
twenty inoffensive men, women and children. 

This is not the act of civilized warfare. It 
is the act of barbarians. No enemy is put hors 
de combat. No military advantage is gained. 
Indeed this is not the object. The object is to 
destroy, terrify and murder. It is prompted 
by hatred, revenge and lust of blood. It is not 
a military proceeding and the perpetrators if 
caught should not be treated as prisoners of 
war, but as private individuals guilty of murder 
in the first degree. 

Floating Min^es 

There is something paralyzing in a sea fight 
between great war vessels. The weapons are 
so monstrous, the fight so terrific and the con- 
sequences so appalling, that we shudder as we 
[77] 



"'Made in Germany'* 

contemplate it. And when the great ship re- 
ceives its mortal wound and takes its final 
plunge into unknown depths, carrying with it 
hundreds of brave men, we stand aghast with 
horror. This, however, is legitimate warfare. 
A floating mine is not a legitimate weapon. It 
is a device of Satan. We are not speaking of 
mines sunk in a harbor to protect a city and 
which are controlled from the shore and are 
designed solely for defence ; we speak of those 
mines floating broadcast, and contact with 
which means instant death and destruction to 
men and vessels, not of an enemy only but of 
neutral nations. The latter 's vessels sailing 
the open seas where they have a right to sail, 
carrying cargoes which they have a right to 
carry, engaged in necessary and peaceable com- 
merce, are suddenly and without an instant's 
notice torn asunder and sunk in the sea. Al- 
ready Sweden has lost eight ships and with 
them sixty lives . . . Denmark has lost six 
ships and six lives, Holland three vessels and 
fifteen lives. The loss of property in these 
disasters has been ten million dollars. The 
losses of Great Britain in men and property 
greatly exceeds the total of these neutral na- 
tions above mentioned. A great passenger 
steamer from the United States grazed a mine 
off the coast of Ireland and barely escaped 
going to the bottom. 

The strewing of these mines is a dastardly 
crime against humanity, no matter by what 

[78] 



German Militarism 

nation it is done. The man or nation found 
guilty of it should suffer the severest penalty 
that can be inflicted. 

MiLITAEISM IN GeBMAIST ScHOOLS AND UNI- 
VERSITIES 

We have defined militarism as the fighting 
propensity, the murderous disposition. These 
qualities being no longer in good repute are 
masked under such virtues as bravery, heroism 
and patriotism. 

For a generation militarism has been taught 
the children and students of Germany under 
the guise of these virtues and especially under 
the guise of loyalty to the Kaiser. They have 
been taught to believe that other nations were 
so envious of German prosperity, that they 
were preparing to invade their country and 
lay it in ruins; that the time was at hand 
when hordes of *' Russian barbarians, frivolous 
Frenchmen and perfidious Englishmen" would 
swoop down upon Germany, devour its sub- 
stance, burn its towns and villages, devastate 
its fields and kill its inhabitants. One thing 
and one thing alone could save their country; 
that was the sword. 

The effect of such teachings upon the plastic 
minds of youth can be imagined. War was the 
thing to look forward to. War was ordained 
of God and the Kaiser. Children must love 
it. They must learn how to hate their enemies 
and kill them. Now for the irony of it all! 

[79] 



"Made in Germany'* 

No such envy of Germany existed among the 
nations. No nation was preparing to attack 
Germany. No threats were made from any 
source. No invader was on her frontiers or 
desired to be. It was all an unmitigated false- 
hood, a cunning device of militarism, for mili- 
tarism and by militarism. It let loose in the 
minds of youth the base passions of hatred, 
malice and murder that are the elements of 
militarism, but which, by skillful manipulation, 
can assume the form of pure patriotism. 

Some years ago an American educator was 
visiting the schools in Germany. He was sur- 
prised to find that in the study of geography, 
the pupils were required to locate the important 
forts on the frontiers of Germany. They were 
required *'to tell the exact value of these forts 
from a strategic and military point of view. ' ' 

The pamphlet, ''The Truth About Germany," 
by Professors Harnack, Wundt, Lamprecht and 
others says, '*We have been forced to become 
a nation of soldiers in order to be free. ' ' The 
Germans ''have been brought up under the 
shadow of the feeling that revengeful neigh- 
bors were waiting for the hour to burn their 
villages and their towns." "This dread every 
German has known from his childhood days." 
"Professor Munsterberg testifies that his con- 
scious life began with a vivid image of Hussars 
returning from the Austro-Prussian war, that 
his first writing was a childish poem about war, 
and that when he was a student at Heidel- 

[80} 



German Militarism 

berg there was no other talk, 'but the war 
which the French restlessness would force upon 
us.' " 

An Englishman investigating German educa- 
tional methods, asked a bright boy what he 
would like to do when he grew up. The boy's 
hand flew to his head in military salute as he 
answered, ''To take London for the Emperor, 
Sir." Here is the fruitage of Treitschke's 
words, ' ' Germany with 60,000,000 virile people 
should address herself to the downfall of Eng- 
land . . . and then what an inheritance to take 
possession of!" The boy's answer shows a 
degree of progress in education that must 
please the Kaiser who had said, "The army 
is an incomparable school for the education of 
the people." 

The answer indicates another thing, viz., 
the deification of the Emperor as the "Over 
"War Lord. ' ' This claim to divinity the Kaiser 
practically makes when he says, '^I received my 
crown from God. On me as German Emperor 
the spirit of God has descended. I am his 
vjeapon; his sword; his Vicegerent." ''There 
is only one law, my law, the law which I myself 
lay down." Again he says, ''The best word is 
a blotv — the army and navy are the pillars of 
the state. ... 7 rely firmly and securely on my 
army." Children and youth, however amiable 
by nature, cannot listen to such sentiments, 
especially from one whom they regard as the 
most exalted being on earth, without having 

[81] 



"Made in Germany'* 

their minds poisoned with the deadly vims of 
militarism. 

The average American, wont to regard Ger- 
many as a model in educational matters, is now 
surprised and pained to learn that, in the place 
of Christian idealism which was formerly the 
basis of education, she has substituted a crass 
materialism. 

This has not been brought about by the Ger- 
man people but by the Kaiser, the military 
oligarchy, and the pagan philosophers. Schools 
and universities have been taken in hand by 
the military state which has curtailed their 
freedom and made them a part of the military 
machine. ''A dozen years ago," says the 
Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican, ''Dr. 
Wolf von Schierbrand told how public educa- 
tion in Germany was suffering from an attempt 
to curtail academic freedom. 'The Prussian 
minister of education openly declared it to be 
the main mission of the university to train 
young men into good servants of the state and 
of the monarchy.'" That is, for the army. 
"The whole spirit was changing in German 
schools and universities. Among the boys and 
young men a spirit of bold utilitarianism was 
rampant. The present generation of young 
men has discarded old aims and ideals . . . the 
change is most profound among the university 
students. They too are the most loud-mouthed 
jingoes, the blind admirers of unscrupulous 
success." 

[82] 



German Militarism 

Two facts explain the militarism of German 
universities and professors. One is thus stated 
by Professor Munsterberg: "In the German 
view the state is not for the individuals, but 
the individuals for the state." This means that 
the state is something apart from the people — • 
a thing that the people really have nothing to 
do with. Their part is simple obedience — as 
the Kaiser says, "absolute, iron, blind obedi- 
ence. ' ' This is despotism. The American view 
is that the state is for the individuals, or rather 
the state is the people politically organized. 
The state and individuals are thus one. This 
is liberty. 

The other fact is, as already suggested, that 
the German university and its professors are 
largely controlled by the state. In Prussia full 
professors are appointed by the sovereign him- 
self. They are paid by the state. They are 
officers of the state. "The complacent pro- 
fessor is decorated, the contumaceous is cash- 
iered." The Kaiser has rewarded and pun- 
ished them at will. 

These two facts, the autocratic theory of the 
state, and the political control of the universi- 
ties, fully account for the attitude of German 
professors respecting the war. They are a part 
of the government. They belong to the mili- 
tary machine and must serve it. "We are not 
surprised, therefore, that the most virulent and 
loathsome phrases of militarism have origin- 
ated with German historians and philosophers. 

[83] 



"Made in Germany" 

The historian Treitschke laid down the vi- 
cious doctrine that '* Might made right." 
''Among all political sins the sin of feebleness 
is the most contemptible. It is the political 
sin against the Holy Ghost. ' ' The philosopher, 
Nietzsche, taught militarism in this fashion: 
* ' Ye have heard men say. Blessed are the peace- 
makers, but I say unto you. Blessed are the war 
makers." Professor Munsterberg says, ''I ad- 
mit that the hostility which Germany is finding 
to-day in all parts of the world was created by 
the development of German militarism; but it 
was just that militarism which constitutes one 
of the most significant expressions of the Ger- 
man power of organization or social efficiency. ' ' 
Hasden, an influential German journalist, 
writes, ''Not against our will and as a nation 
taken by surprise did we hurl ourselves into 
this gigantic venture. "We willed it." This is 
the will to power, taught by Neitzsche who died 
insane while his doctrines live insane. 

In the same strain Professor Niessen, privy 
councillor, writes, "It is militarism that has 
permitted us to do great things. Let us keep 
our militarism. It will enable Germany to 
retain her position, to rise from disaster. If 
we win let us cultivate militarism to the utmost 
in order to preserve the fruits of victory. ' ' This 
purpose to "cultivate militariiim to the ut- 
most," after either defeat or victory in the 
present war, is a proclamation of war in per- 
petuam against the nations of the world. The 

[84] 



German Militarism 

thought of it is paralyzing. It leaves three 
courses open to the Allies. They must either 
continue the war until German militarism is 
annihilated; or, peace being made, leaving it 
in force, they must immediately renew the pol- 
icy of huge armaments in preparation for war ; 
or lastly, the nations must form a league of 
peace backed by a police force strong enough 
to compel Germany to disarm, "We will add 
only one other testimony which is truly rep- 
resentative. Ninety-three German authors, 
scientists and artists have issued an appeal in 
which they say, ' ' It is not true that the combat 
against our so-called militarism is not a combat 
against our civilization as our enemies hypo- 
critically pretend it is. Were it not for Ge- 
man militarism, German civilization would long 
since have been extirpated." 

Wliat an admission! ''German civilization" 
founded on ''German militarism"; which is 
hatred, murder, the lust of blood! How ob- 
sessed the intellect, how atrophied the heart of 
a man who does not know that a hundred Ger- 
man or any other civilizations ought to be 
"extirpated" if they can only live by the dia- 
bolical exhibition of militarism presented by 
this war, in which millions of our brothers are 
being mangled and killed amid shrieks, groan- 
ings and agonies that cannot be uttered, leav- 
ing behind them aged parents going down in 
sorrow to the grave, heart-broken widows who 
refuse to be comforted, and innocent little chil- 

[85] 



"Made in Germany^' 

dren thrust unprotected by a father's love upon 
a cold, cruel world. May God in infinite mercy 
save mankind from any civilization based on 
such diabolism! 

Militarism and the German People at Large 

We are constantly assured on the one hand, 
that this is not a war of the German people, 
who are amiable and peace-loving, but of the 
Kaiser and the military oligarchy that control 
the state. On the other hand, the Kaiser and 
all German writers declare that all classes of 
the people are absolutely one in regard to the 
war ; they never cease to reiterate this as a fact 
to show the strength and justice of their cause. 
*' Americans are mistaken," says the privy 
councilor. Professor Niessen, ''in supposing 
that the common people in Germany are not in 
favor of militarism." 

The German system of government explains 
this conflict of opinion. It consists of a hier- 
archy of officials beginning with the smallest 
town officer, each official being responsible to 
the next higher, until it reaches the chancellor, 
who is appointed and dismissed by the Kaiser, 
who is thus absolute. ' * Suffrage is on the three 
class system, which gives to the rich first class 
fifty to one hundred times the voting power 
that is possessed by the poor third class." 

The German Congress consists of two bodies ; 
the upper house called the Bundesrat which is 
appointed by the states and never debates but 

[86] 



German Militarism 

merely votes, and the lower house, the Reich- 
stag. Only by courtesy can the Reichstag be 
called a representative body since it has no final 
power. For example, let its members refuse 
to pass a supply bill or veto what the Kaiser 
wants and the order comes, ''Break ranks, 
march ! ' ' and home they go. 

The whole political and social machinery is 
as systematized and arbitrary as the move- 
ments of an army, and the common people have 
about as little voice as does the common soldier 
in directing their own movements. Thus the 
state is everything and the individual nothing. 
He is trained from infancy to blind, unquestion- 
ing obedience. He has complete liberty, how- 
ever, within the walls of his large cell, or within 
the lines of the military g-uards that surround 
his industrial and all other social camps. 

The German people are thus a part of the 
military machine. In a military atmosphere 
they live, move and have their being. Bis- 
marck said that the German army was an 
''army of the folk itself." It is "theirs not to 
reason why, ' ' but to obey. In the words of the 
Kaiser, "Absolute, iron, blind obedience," is 
required and enforced. 

If we add to this condition of servility and 
aloofness from the state, the profound igno- 
rance of the common people, not in matters per- 
taining to their work, in which they are very in- 
telligent, but in matters pertaining to the gov- 
ernment, its internal affairs and its foreign 

[87] 



''Made in Germany'* 

policies, we have a partial explanation at least 
of what Professor Niessen calls the militarism 
of the common people. We do not believe, how- 
ever, that the common people of Germany or 
any other civilized country, under normal con- 
ditions favor militarism. They hate it. 

The German people have been fearfully and 
wonderfully duped into the belief that their 
country was being attacked and they were act- 
ing on the defensive. They were told that mil- 
lions of enemies with flaming swords were on 
their frontiers hastening to lay the fatherland 
in ruins. 

A manifesto signed by ninety-three German 
scholars, scientists and publicists says, ''Ger- 
many did their utmost to prevent war"; again, 
* ' The struggle has been forced upon her, ' ' and 
the astounding statement, ''A numerical su- 
periority, which had been lying in wait on the 
frontiers assailed us." We once heard a 
clergyman gravely argue ''that there were 
four kinds of lies," but the above fabrications 
would easily include all varieties. There is not 
a syllable of truth in these statements, but the 
people believed them and so doubtless did the 
authors themselves. Nobody had shown the 
least intention of "lying in wait." Nobody 
had "assailed" her or violated a single German 
right or proposed to do so. No hostile threat 
of any kind, by anybody, had been made, nor 
was there the least sign of such a thing on the 
whole political horizon; moreover and con- 

[88] 



German Militarism 

clusively, this manifesto does not and cannot 
specify a single act in support of this 
astounding statement. 

The people were told that the Kaiser, in his 
struggle for peace had, as it were, spent his 
nights in agonizing prayer and his days in 
pleading with the nations for a peace confer- 
ence to prevent war. This great lie was swal- 
lowed whole by the people. All the world now 
knows that the exact opposite was the truth. 
The Allies were pleading with the Kaiser to 
stay the hand of Austria and so keep the peace. 
The Kaiser turned a deaf ear to all these en- 
treaties. Germany was the aggressor. No 
German apologist dares to assert that the 
Kaiser could not by a single word have averted 
war, nor dare any deny that the Kaiser refused 
to speak that word. 

So completely deceived are the people that at 
a public meeting held several months after hos- 
tilities began, it was resolved that the war must 
be continued until we ^^ leave our enemies in- 
capable of ever again declaring war on Ger- 
many. Above all the continuous and most far 
reaching military preparedness is absolutely 
essential." Thus are the conunon people 
buncoed into forging the chains which bind 
them to a system of militarism imposed upon 
them by autocracy. 

The ignorance of the common people was well 
illustrated at the battle of Liege. Dr. Freder- 
ick Lynch says in his ' ' Through Europe on the 

[89] 



"Made in Germany'* 

Eve of War," ''Those 25,000 poor German 
soldiers who were killed or wounded in that aw- 
ful battle thought they were fighting French- 
men who were trying to get into Germany. As 
a matter of fact the French had made no move 
up to this time and were still trying to secure 
peace." 

How is it possible to keep people so intelli- 
gent as the Germans in ignorance on matters 
of such moment? The answer is, by a rigid 
censorship of the press and all other avenues 
of information. Opposition to the government 
is not tolerated. "Woe to the disobedient!" 
says the Kaiser. Newspapers are suppressed; 
freedom of speech curtailed ; university profes- 
sors are muzzled as we have seen; public opin- 
ion is manufactured, owned and controlled by 
the government with characteristic thorough- 
ness and efficiency. Bismarck says, "It is the 
duty of the state to control public opinion. It 
has the means to accomplish this. The people 
must be made to believe whatever their rulers 
think it wise and best for them to believe. ' ' 

It is this organized and efficient ignorance, 
this popular gullibility of the Germans fos- 
tered from childhood, and scientifically admin- 
istered under the great seal of the state, that 
enables the government, under the shibboleth of 
love for the fatherland, to fool the people into 
the belief that they are fighting in self-defence. 
Sixty-five million Germans fell upon peaceful 
little Belgium and by plundering, burning and 

[90] 



German Militarism 

murdering laid it in utter ruin, and when you 
ask a German the meaning of this, he replies, 
''Why, Germany is defending herself against 
Belgium!'^ 

About two years ago Germany increased her 
army by 600,000 men. Soon afterwards France, 
in order to meet the danger, increased her army. 
The German people groaning under the load of 
armaments murmured against the additional 
burden. Listen now to the answer attributed 
to Bernhardi. "The idea that our armaments 
are a reply to the armaments and policy of the 
French must he instilled into the people." 

Was the ruse successful? Let the popular 
enthusiasm for the war, which German writers 
call militarism, answer. Even educated Ger- 
mans believe that this great increase of the 
army was caused by and followed the increase 
of the French army, the exact reverse of the 
truth. 

Another instance of deceiving the people ap- 
pears in ''The Truth About Germany." This 
says, "We have been forced to become a nation 
of soldiers in order to be free." No evidence 
is offered in support of the statement. The 
truth is the people have become soldiers to en- 
able the Kaiser and military caste to enter upon 
aggressive wars of conquest. Germany in fear 
of losing her freedom! We cannot repress a 
smile. The Kaiser himself exclaims "We Ger- 
mans fear God and nothing else in the world. ' ' 
"In this war it is Germany that strikes," says 
[91] 



"Made in Germany" 

Harden, the able German journalist, and 
''When she has conquered new domains for 
her genius then the priesthood of all gods will 
praise the God of War." Not for defence nor 
from fear but for "domains" have Germans 
been forced to become soldiers. ''Weak na- 
tions have no right to live," says another 
writer. Another authority writes, "we must 
not wait for some act of aggression but are 
justified in deliberately provoking a war." 
This is exactly what Germany has done. We 
could fill pages with similar quotations show- 
ing the purpose of Germany to wage war for 
dominion, and to impose her will and her cul- 
ture upon other nations at the mouth of Krupps 
and the point of the bayonet. Could the com- 
mon people of Germany be disillusioned this 
war would cease in thirty days. Some day they 
will know the truth for, as Lincoln said, you 
can fool some of the people all the time, and all 
of the people some of the time, but you cannot 
fool all the people all the time. 

Militarism in the German Church 

An eminent American divine has defined mili- 
tarism as a system based on faith in military 
power and considerations as supreme over 
other power and considerations. If this is cor- 
rect should we not all approve of militarism in 
a defensive war? Surely there is nothing 
necessarily wrong in such faith. Americans 
had it and had to have it in the wars that estab- 

[92] 



German Militarism 

lished and preserved the republic. On their 
armies depended their all. The ultimate faith 
however, was in a God of justice and judgment, 
of righteousness and love. 

Behind this terrible war there is something 
other than "A system based on military power 
and considerations as supreme." There is a 
martial spirit that in the last analysis means 
the murderous disposition or the lust of blood. 
This is militarism. It is not a ''system" al- 
though in giving it vent, in applying it, a sys- 
tem is required, just as electricity is not a 
system although in applying it, a system is 
required. 

In former times this brutal lust could be 
gratified in many ways. Men were tortured, 
torn asunder by wild beasts, or cut in pieces 
and thrown to fishes for the amusement of the 
people. Since this is no longer permitted, the 
only method of gratifying this militarism is by 
aggressive war. This is war for the sake of 
war and its trophies of scalps, conquest, loot 
and power. The great jingoes of history, Alex- 
ander, Caesar, and Napoleon regarded these 
things as the acme of glory and their praises 
are still sung by the bestial instincts of man. 

Jesus Christ is called the Prince of Peace. 
He it was who said, ''Blessed are the peace 
makers for they shall be called the children of 
God." The world has a right to expect from 
his ministers loyalty to the great Teacher. 

The attitude of religious leaders in Germany 
[93] 



"Made in Germany'* 

toward the war has surprised Christians the 
world over. In a letter ''To the Evangelical 
Christians Abroad" they utterly ignore all ef- 
forts for a peaceful solution of the issue be- 
tween Austria and Servia. They have no word 
of approval for Servia 's proposal of arbitra- 
tion, but refer to Austria's brutal ultimatum 
as ''The justifiable vengeance for an abomi- 
nable royal murder. ' ' Could it be true that the 
ministers of the Prince of Peace would thus re- 
ject the humble request for a peace conference 
to adjust differences ? It was even so. 

Let us take another instance of the relapse 
from Christianity. "The Truth About Ger- 
many" is signed by such theologians as Har- 
nack and such preachers as Dryander. They 
unblushingly assert that ^^ England and France 
were resolved not to respect the neutrality of 
Belgium." There is not a shred of evidence 
to support this statement. It is wholly false. 
In spite of her solemn agreement to keep out of 
Belgium, Germany had for twenty years been 
training her Krupps and strategic railroads 
upon Belgium. At length the little country be- 
came so alarmed that she consulted with Eng- 
land and France, also guarantors of her neu- 
trality, as to what they should do in case Ger- 
many, regardless of her promise, should invade 
Belgium. That was all. Now these ministers 
declare that these very consultations, designed 
solely to have all parties respect Belgium neu- 
trality, prove that "England and France were 

[94] 



German Militarism 

resolved not to respect it ! " The charge is false 
on the face of the facts. Borne along on the 
current of militarism these ministers are guilty 
of bearing false witness. 

Let us turn now to the head of the Church, 
the Kaiser. His constant coupling of God and 
the army as preservers of the Empire is an 
evil omen. His declarations often end with, 
''So help me God and our German Sword." 
He believes himself to be a deeply religious 
man. Is his religion that of a Christian? Let 
us look for a moment at his conception of the 
Church. He says, "I am the Summus Episco- 
pus of my Church, ' ' then he exclaims, ' ' Hurrah 
for the dry powder and the sharp Sword!" 
Again he says, "The sole support and only 
protection of the Church are to be found in the 
Imperial hand and under the aegis of the Ger- 
man Empire." He said to his troops: "You 
think each day of your Emperor. Do not for- 
get God." This reminds us of another occa- 
sion when he is reported to have bestowed the 
iron cross upon several officers and God re- 
ceived honorable mention. This "imperial 
hand" says, "When you encounter the enemy 
you will defeat him. No quarter shall be 
given, no prisoners taken." 

These and many like utterances are by the 
Supreme Head of the Church in Germany. 
They are the negation of Christianity and re- 
veal the paganism and militarism of the 
Church. 

[95] 



"Made in Germany'* 

When leading Germans say, "We are bound 
to follow our Kaiser, ' ' his religion is of the ut- 
most importance. Of his dead ancestors he 
says, ^^One day I shall have to render to them 
an account of both the honor and glory of my 
army." His post mortem "account" respect- 
ing a certain "scrap of paper," the invasion 
of Belgium, the burning of homes, shooting and 
starving the people, the dropping of bombs 
upon the houses of working men, the bombard- 
ing of undefended towns and killing women 
and babies, will doubtless be greeted with 
applause by spirits in a certain locality; 
but our point now is that the public avowal 
of this worship of ancestors is distinctively 
pagan. 

Thor and Odin were ancient gods of the Ger- 
mans. They delighted in war. They glorified 
good men, but the only good men were "war- 
riors who died fighting." Listen now to the 
Kaiser. "I do not know of any more reputable 
place to die in than in the midst of enemies." 
Thus the Kaiser pays homage to Thor. 

Attila was a German butcher of men in war. 
He also murdered his own brother. He was 
known as the ' ' Scourge of God. ' ' This is the 
man held up by the Kaiser as an example to 
his soldiers, as follows: "Just as the Huns a 
thousand years ago under the leadership of 
Attila gained a reputation in virtue of which 
they still live ... so may the name of Ger- 
many become known in such manner in China 

[96] 



German Militarism 

that no Chinaman will ever dare look askance 
at a German. ' ' 

Attila claimed to be divine. The Kaiser also 
says, ''Upon me the spirit of God has de- 
scended" and he is addressed as "Your 
Majesty's Sacred Person." 

Attila was presented with the ''Iron sword 
of the War-God." The Kaiser also bestows 
an iron token upon his braves. 

Attila worshipped at the shrine of Odin who 
delighted in war and was armed with a thun- 
der-bolt and hammer. The Kaiser kneels at the 
same shrine and pours into the listening ear of 
Odin these words constantly falling from his 
lips; — war, army, military service, soldiers, 
battle, fight, swords, troops, bravery, military 
honor, uniform, obedience, discipline, conquer, 
enemy, training, triumphs, conflict, shield, bat- 
tle-field, brave deeds, blood, officers, regiments, 
guards, bayonets, cannon, navy, warships. No 
monarch ever lived possessed of such a war 
vocabulary or made such constant use of it. 

This paganism is veiled with a veneering of 
Christianity. The Kaiser, however, is not a 
hypocrite. If he deceives others he is himself 
deceived. Just as the pious thug strangled his 
victim or the worshipper of Devi plunged his 
dagger into the heart of the unsuspecting, the 
act being preceded with prayer and followed 
by special religious rites, so the Kaiser, in 
soaking the soil of Europe with the blood of 
millions, considers himself engaged in a holy 

[97] 



''Made in Germany'* 

and honorable calling. He talks glibly of God, 
of the Bible, of Christ and of prayer. His 
religious terminology is Christian, but his god 
is Mars, his saviour is his Army, his holy spirit 
is the Sword, his heaven is Victory, his hell is 
Defeat, and his prayer is ''Let the kingdoms 
of this world become the kingdoms of the War 
Lord and of the House of Hohenzollern and let 
them reign forever and ever." 

"We are not, however, dealing with the re- 
ligion of the Kaiser with reference to himself, 
but only as it shows the militarism of the 
Church of which he declares himself to be 
" Summus Episcopus." He is the representa- 
tive. A stream will rise no higher than the 
fountain. 

We have many declarations by leading men 
of his church that militarism is a good thing, 
the corner stone of the state, a divine institu- 
tion to be zealously maintained in the future 
whatever be the issue of the present war. 

Our position is that a civilization based upon 
this principle is anti-christian and barbarous. 
There is but one ethical standard of right and 
wrong. It applies to individuals and nations 
alike. It is futile, therefore, to say that by 
militarism Germans understand one thing, 
Americans another. It is not what anybody 
understands by it, but what the thing really is 
that counts. It means the abrogation of the 
commandment, ''Thou shalt not kill." It 
means this semper et ubique and it never has 

[98] 



German Militarism 

meant and it never will mean anything else. 

However militarism may be disguised by the 
so called manly virtues, however masked by 
patriotism or cloaked by specious appeals for 
national expansion, aggrandizement and glory, 
it is pure thuggism in its essence, spirit and 
purpose, and an advancing civilization and the 
stars in their courses will fight against it until 
it is sent to the bottomless pit whence it came. 

Our country, like every other, has its con- 
scienceless jingoes. They are not, however, 
those who, while deploring war, favor reason- 
able armaments solely for defence. So long as 
a predatory nation is allowed to attack and re- 
duce to vassalage another nation, so long will 
it be the only safe and sane policy for every na- 
tion to provide armaments for defence. This 
is not militarism, it is self-preservation. 

''Germany in the Next War," page eleven 
says, "The Germans must, regardless of the 
rights and interests of other peoples, fight their 
way to predominance and force upon humanity 
German culture and spirit." 

Here is militarism in all its hideous, moral 
nakedness. Here is the iniquitous cause of the 
war stated concisely, adequately and truthfully. 

The American people look with abhorrence 
upon such principles. They believe them to be 
subversive of religion and morals, of liberty 
and law, of truth and justice and all else that 
makes life worth living. Their views toward 
militarism and war, and toward peace and 

[99] 



''Made in Germany'' 

brotherhood among men, agree more and more 
with those of Washington beautifully expressed 
as follows: *'My first wish is to see the whole 
world in peace and its inhabitants one band of 
brothers, striving who should contribute most 
to the happiness of mankind. As a citizen of 
the great republic of humanity, I indulge the 
idea that the period is not remote when the 
benefits of free commerce will succeed the 
devastation and horrors of war. ' ' 



[100] 



CHAPTER IV 

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF 
NEUTRALITY 

Neutkality Defined 

In the present war America is neutral, 
Americans are not neutral. This paradox is 
easily explained. In the first instance the word 
neutral is used in an international sense ; in the 
second instance it is used in a moral sense. In- 
ternationally the United States is out of the 
war ; morally its people are in it and in it just 
to the extent that they have moral convictions. 

International neutrality was unknown to the 
ancients. Every nation was regarded as a 
friend or foe. The right of neutrality is a 
product of Christian civilization. 

A proclamation of neutrality means that the 
nation issuing it will refrain from taking any 
part directly or indirectly in a war between 
other nations. "The impartiality which it is 
the duty of the neutral to observe towards the 
belligerents has been summed up by Vattel 
in two propositions cited by Wheaton with 
approval : — 

*'(!) That no assistance should be given 
to either party in matters relating to war, un- 
less under some pre-existing stipulation; 

[101] 



^Made in Germany' 



II 



(2) That in matters not relating to war, 
the neutral should not refuse to one belligerent 
merely because he is at war with the other, 
what she grants to that other. ' ' 

The * impartiality " and ''assistance" have 
reference to material things only and not to 
the feelings or sympathies of neutrals. The 
neutral nation, however, is to be regarded as 
the friend of all the belligerents. 

President Wilson's Proclamation of 
Neutrality 

Our President in his proclamation of neu- 
trality warns the people against hasty and par- 
tisan speech. Men of all nations are among us 
as neighbors. War stirs the deepest emotions. 
Thus far we agree with him. We are, however, 
moral beings and freedom of speech and of the 
press are corner stones of this republic. There 
are vast moral and political issues involved in 
this war, and Americans have a legitimate and 
profound interest in them. 

We cannot, therefore, agree with the Presi- 
dent in urging a complete neutrality of thought. 
We are bound to treat all belligerents alike 
but we are not bound to think of them alike. 
Neutrality does not mean that the government 
or the people shall have no opinions about the 
war or refrain from expressing them. It does 
not mean that they may not consider its causes 
and consequences, or that they are indifferent 
to the issues involved, or the manner in which 
[102] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

the war is carried on. It does not hinder the 
people from criticising the belligerents. It re- 
quires neutral nations to assert and protect 
their own rights when threatened by belliger- 
ents, and, in case international laws governing 
the conduct of war are violated by any bellig- 
erent, it is the duty of a neutral, as one of the 
makers of such laws, to enter a solemn protest. 

A subtle and mischievous thing about the 
discussion of neutrality in our country is the 
tacit assumption that there are two standards 
of morality concerning it, one for the private 
citizen and another for the government. Some 
say that private citizens may express their 
opinions, but the government must not criticise 
or protest against the most outrageous vio- 
lations of international law by belligerents. 
Others regard the silence of the government in 
such cases as cowardly if not criminal. 

A double standard of morality is essentially 
the negation of morality. 

International or official neutrality is not 
above the requirements of the moral law. The 
maxim, nothing is politically right that is mor- 
ally wrong is fundamental. Moral neutrality 
is a misnomer. God is not neutral, A moral 
being can no more be morally neutral than a 
seeing being can be without sight. Professor 
George Trumble Ladd of Yale says, ''Kant 
teaches us that there can be no such thing as 
moral neutrality." May we not add that the 
moral instincts of any child of ten years of age 
[103] 



"Made in Germany'' 

that has been properly brought up will give the 
same testimony. 

The Case op Belgium 

We have called attention in a former chap- 
ter to Belgian neutrality which was guaranteed 
by France, England, Austria, Eussia and 
Germany. 

In the London convention of 1831 these five 
powers declared Belgium's neutrality and 
"Guaranteed her that perpetual neutrality as 
well as the integrity and inviolability of her 
territory." The London treaty of 1839 made a 
similar declaration and added thEit," Belgium 
shall be bound to observe the same neutrality 
toward all other nations." In other words, 
Belgium agreed not to make war upon other 
nations, and these five signatory nations agreed 
not to permit war to be made on Belgium ; that 
is, they guaranteed her neutrality. This meant 
that each guarantor was bound to go to war 
against any invader of Belgium, otherwise the 
guarantee is the veriest farce. 

The position, therefore, that a guarantor of 
Belgian neutrality may fulfill the pledge to re- 
spect her neutrality, but need not protect it, is 
indefensible and dishonorable. To protect 
means if necessary to resort to force; but so 
does the protection of all agreements. The 
simplest contracts between individuals will be 
enforced by the sheriff and all the military 
forces of the state. 

[104] 



Bights and Duties of Neutrality 

It cannot be denied that Germany was under 
the most solemn treaty obligations to keep out 
of Belgium, and that England, France and Eus- 
sia were under similar obligations to draw the 
sword against her the moment she invaded 
Belgian territory. 

It should be stated here that wholly apart 
from this treaty, Belgium, like every other 
country at peace, was immune by international 
law from invasion. 

The Hague convention of 1907 only set its 
own seal to this well established law as fol- 
lows: "The territory of neutral nations is 
inviolable." "Belligerents are forbidden to 
move troops or convoys whether munitions of 
war or supplies across the territory of a neu- 
tral power." 

If for want of ratification or any other rea- 
son this provision does not apply, it should be 
remembered that the principle was in full force 
under international law, and this Hague declar- 
ation adds its cumulative force and great moral 
weight to the existing law, and places all par- 
ties under supreme obligations to observe it. 
So absolutely indisputable is this obligation 
that the German Chancellor, Herr von Beth- 
mann Hollweg used these words in the Reich- 
stag: ''Our troops have occupied Luxemburg 
and are perhaps even now on Belgian soil. 
This act is contrary to the rights of nations." 
He proceeded to justify it on the grounds of 
military necessity. The doctrine of military 

[105] 



^'Made in Germany'' 

necessity is recognized by law. It is defined 
as, "The necessity which in war attends mili- 
tary operations and is held sufficient to justify 
the damaging or destruction of rights conceded 
to exist in time of peace. It does not admit of 
cruelty, wanton destruction or perfidy/' It 
does not admit of the violation of a promise or 
trust or of "modern law and usages of war." 

No military necessity, therefore, existed for 
the invasion of Belgium, as indeed the German 
Chancellor well knew. His only ground for 
such act, had he declared it, was the vicious 
principle that might makes right. 

The moral obtuseness of his declaration, its 
political lawlessness and insolent audacity are 
without parallel. Its consequences have struck 
terror and indignation into the hearts of men 
everywhere. The crime of Germany against 
Belgium was fourfold. It was a violation of 
international law; of her solemn pledge of 
guarantee; of her ivritten renewal by Bismarck 
in 1870, and of the Hague convention of 1907. 
Whatever be the issue of the war, the unani- 
mous verdict of the world will be the complete 
condemnation of Germany and the complete 
justification of Belgium. 

Furthermore, it will be seen that the law of 
military necessity as above defined does not ad- 
mit of ''cruelty, wanton destruction or per- 
fidy." These are the very things of which 
Germany has been guilty in invading Belgium, 
killing its citizens, and in her submarine bar- 

[106] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

barities. England, on the other hand, to her 
praise be it said, in her measures of retaliation 
and reprisal has scrupulously conformed to 
this law, and the law may be held to be suf- 
ficiently elastic to justify her course respect- 
ing the commerce of neutral nations. 

Benevolent Neutrality 

This is a kind of "imperfect" neutrality or 
a friendly leaning to one side. 

By way of preface let us say that at the out- 
set of the war Americans were singularly free 
from prejudice. We loved England, we ad- 
mired Germany, we esteemed France and were 
hoping the best for Russia. Our opinions have 
not been governed by ex parte statements, 
racial sympathy, political affinities, religious 
beliefs or commercial interests, but solely by 
the everlasting right and wrong involved in the 
war, in the way it was begun and has been car- 
ried on. Never was a jury impaneled more im- 
partial, more intelligent, more anxious to hear 
all the evidence, or more conscientious in 
weighing it, than have been the people of the 
United States in this war. 

This war took the world by surprise. The 
sudden invasion of Belgium and the awful 
slaughter at Liege where 25,000 Germans were 
killed or wounded, paralyzed this country where 
the peace movement had become deeply rooted 
in the hearts of the people. Then came the 
President's proclamation of neutrality which 
[107] 



"Made in Germany" 

was greeted with enthusiasm. The average 
citizen did not know just what neutrality was or 
required but he took the President's word for 
it. Let us look at our neutrality with reference 
to Belgium by making use of a parable. 

A, B, and G jointly establish a law that 
neither shall trespass upon the premises of the 
other. After a while G, in defiance of the law, 
invades B's premises and a fight ensues for 
possession. What now is the duty of A? Has 
A no interest or obligation in upholding the 
law to which he is a party? Can he legally or 
morally proclaim neutrality? But one answer 
is possible. A normal child of ten years with 
unerring instinct and absolute truth would 
say that A was bound to go to the assistance of 
B. In no other way could the law by which all 
parties were bound be upheld. Furthermore 
it is A's own law and no less so because it is 
also the law of B and C. A had no right to be- 
come a party to a law which he was not under 
obligations to help enforce. If A does not de- 
mand the benefits of the law for B, he cannot 
demand them for himself. If when G invaded 
B's premises, A had proclaimed neutrality, he 
would have violated the law, betrayed B and 
sanctioned anarchy. 

A is America, B is Belgium and G is Ger- 
many. They had between them an inter- 
national law which forbade either to trespass 
upon the territory of the other. Germany, in 
defiance of the law, trespassed upon Belgian 
[108] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

territory and war ensued. It was the duty of 
America to go to the assistance of Belgium. 
Let it be borne in mind that it was America's 
own law as well as the law of Belgium and 
Germany. International law is now every- 
where held to he the common law of the land. 
If America does not demand the benefits of the 
law for Belgium she may not demand them for 
herself. America had no right to become a 
party to a law and then refuse to be a party to 
its enforcement. That would be the attitude of 
the Maine statesman toward prohibition; he 
was in favor of the law — ^but against its 
enforcement. 

When Germany invaded Belgium the neu- 
trality proclaimed by America would have vio- 
lated law, betrayed Belgium and introduced in- 
ternational anarchy had it not been for a sin- 
gle circumstance, viz; a release from her obli- 
gations by Belgium. 

Belgium had a legal, international and moral 
right to call upon every nation amenable to in- 
ternational law to help her enforce that law 
against Germany, who frankly and officially 
said to the world upon her invasion of Bel- 
gium, ''This act is contrary to the rights of 
nations." 

As a party to international law, therefore, 
and upon its confessed violation, the United 
States had no more right to proclaim neutrality 
without the consent of Belgium, than she has to 
proclaim neutrality should one of our states de- 

[109] 



''Made in Germany'^ 

clare war against another, or a foreign power 
declare war against the state of Massachusetts. 
Belgium, by implication, gave her consent. She 
did not call on the United States for help. 

The President issued his proclamation of 
neutrality. It soon became evident that he had 
gone beyond the requirements of what jurists 
call "strict" neutrality, or the with-holding 
material assistance from either side, and en- 
joined neutrality in speech, feeling and thought 
toward all acts of the belligerents, including 
the blackest and most colossal crime in human 
history — the invasion of Belgium. Here we 
have an instance of benevolent neutrality, a 
friendly leaning to one side. In what did this 
leaning consist? In the failure to make a 
solemn protest against Germany's violation 
of international law in the invasion of Belgium. 

In releasing the United States from the obli- 
gation of physical support, Belgium did not and 
could not release us from the duty of protesting 
against the overthrow of our own common law 
and the law common to the nations by the act 
of Germany. 

Our failure to make this protest, our acquies- 
cence in this violation of international law and 
the terrible crime committed, gave Germany a 
moral advantage over Belgium of great im- 
portance. This we repeat is benevolent neu- 
trality. In addition to this, it did violence to 
the right, dishonored the law, and misrepre- 
sented the people who, while they hate war and 

[110] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

rejoiced to escape it, regard the obligations of 
their country, the sovereignty of her laws, and 
her honor as paramount to all other considera- 
tions. It should be noted that all other neutral 
powers followed the example of the United 
States in consenting, by their silence, to this 
outrageous breach of the world's laws. 

What was the effect of this benevolent neu- 
trality toward Germany upon her methods of 
warfare? The political and military philoso- 
phy of Germany is absolutely unique in the 
world of to-day. It is summarized by her fore- 
most men in the shibboleths, ''World power 
or Downfall" and "We are and must be 
barbarians." 

Such utterances were at first regarded as the 
hysterical vaporings of the Kaiser and his ar- 
rogant brood of Junkers. They were taken 
more seriously, however, when we heard Ger- 
man philosophers, statesmen and scholars de- 
claring that Gott had destined their country to 
become ruler of the world, that its duty was to 
*' impose German civilization and kultur" upon 
all peoples through ' ' The will to power, " to be 
realized by means of ''the German sword." 

German apologists now assure us that these 
sentiments were unauthorized and do not rep- 
resent their government. Even the Kaiser 
says, "A world power is pure nonsense." 

What these sentiments do represent, however, 
is the exact procedures of the Germans in the 
conduct of the war. It is idle to say that a 

[111] 



"Made in Germany'* 

government repudiates a barbarous philosophy 
when it practices it so literally as to horrify the 
world. 

Pan-Germanism is now asserting its world- 
power aspirations by confronting with her 
armies Great Britain, France, Russia and Ser- 
via, by taking command of the armies of Aus- 
tria-Hungary, by taking possession of Belgium 
and Luxemburg, by purchasing with gold the 
non-interference of Bulgaria, by equipping and 
officering the troops of Turkey, and by saying 
to Italy, if reports are true, *' Serve my inter- 
ests or share the fate of Belgium." 

Imperial Eome never dreamed of such do- 
minion and power. After eight months of war 
Germany is boldly proclaiming her steadfast 
purpose to conquer all her enemies and achieve 
the conquest of Europe if not the world. 

As to her other shibboleth of barbarism she 
has been ruthlessly faithful. Her Chancellor 
put the whole idea and policy in a nut shell, 
when he declared in the Reichstag that ^^Neces- 
sity knows no law." This means that each 
belligerent, deeming it a ** necessity" to suc- 
ceed may set aside all laws of civilized warfare. 
It declares that a man feeling it a ''necessity" 
to possess the purse of another, will recognize 
no law against killing him and will proceed to 
do so. 

This is the abrogation of all law and govern- 
ment. It is the reign of pandemonium. It is 
not so much the doctrine that might makes 
[112] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

right as that might makes hades. This is the 
principle, than which no man-eating Tierra del 
Fuegan, no scalping North American savage 
or murderous thug, ever conceived one more 
brutal and diabolical, which the Chancellor of 
Germany unblushingly proclaimed in the Reich- 
stag would be followed in her methods of 
warfare. 

In acquiescing in this principle at the out- 
break of the war we believe the United States 
was guilty of benevolent neutrality toward 
Germany which has greatly encouraged the 
lawlessness of her course, while inflicting a 
most damaging blow upon Belgium and the 
allies, and making necessary great sacrifices on 
the part of the United States, and is now en- 
dangering our peace. Observe the outcome of 
this infamous doctrine that ''necessity knows 
no law. ' ' 

The Outlook of February 3, 1915, after citing 
the recognized rules of civilized warfare, says, 
*'To allow the violations of that law to pass 
unnoticed is to be unfaithful to civilization. 
. . . That law was violated in the invasion of 
Luxemburg and Belgium, and it is charged 
that the law was violated in Chinese territory. 
It has been violated in the dropping of bombs 
by airmen upon civilians and upon private 
property, whether the towns in which such 
civilians were killed and such property de- 
stroyed were defended or not. It has been 
violated in the deliberate bombardment of un- 
[113] 



"Made in Germany'* 

defended towns and undefended districts in. 
great cities. It has been violated by pillage, 
by the levying of illegal contributions upon at 
least one province and several cities, by the ex- 
action of collective penalties for individual 
acts, by the demand for millions of dollars of 
merchandise from private parties. It has been 
violated in the needless bonbardment and de- 
struction of monuments of religion, education 
and art. It has been violated in the forcing of 
inliabitants of occupied territory to furnish in- 
formation about the armies of their own na- 
tion. It has been violated in the laying of mines 
in the open sea. It has been violated in raids 
by sea and land, and by other measures whose 
only possible military consequence, and there- 
fore whose evident object, was to strike terror 
into the hearts of non-combatants. . . . There 
has been exhibited time and time again a ruth- 
less brutality that cannot be explained as the 
irresponsible action of individual soldiers, but 
involves the deliberate military policy of re- 
sponsible officers. 

''If there had never been a Hague conven- 
tion signed, the moral interests of the United 
States in these infractions of the public law of 
nations would still be plain. The fact that 
there are Hague conventions and that the 
United States has signed and confirmed them 
makes all the more plain not only the interest 
of the United States in these infractions, but 
the right of the United States to say something 
[114] 



Bights and Duties of Neutrality 

about tliem. In the face of these facts how can 
the United States remain silent?" 

Benevolent neutrality whether active or pas- 
sive toward any belligerent is equivalent to an 
unneutral act. 

Upon the violation of international law, it is 
the unquestioned legal right and moral duty of 
every other country belonging to the family 
of nations, to enter its protest against such 
violation. 

What may a belligerent do by way of re- 
prisal against an adversary who has violated 
international law? Sir Edward Grey says, 
"It is impossible for one belligerent to depart 
from rules and precedents and for the other to 
remain bound by them." Such is the rule and 
it has been applied in many instances. How 
far may the reprisal go in violation of law? 
There must be limits. Humanity requires 
them. This is a question not yet settled by in- 
ternational law. It is well settled, however, 
that in no case can a nation in making reprisals 
resort to ''cruelty, wanton destruction or 
perfidy. ' ' 

How far can such reprisals invade the 
rights of neutrals? This is the subject matter 
of notes exchanged between the United States 
and Great Britain and Germany. We have 
protested to Germany against the establish- 
ment of war zones and submarine attacks that 
might destroy American shipping and lives, 
and to Great Britain against the use of the 
[115] 



''Made in Grermany" 

American flag by her merchant vessels. Great 
Britain is within her rights in the occasional 
use of our flag and she disclaims any intention 
of its general use. Both countries, therefore, 
agree as to the law and its observance. Ger- 
many on the other hand persists in her illegal 
course in regard to mines and submarines. 

Great Britain's violations of international 
law thus far appear to have been by way of 
reprisals against such violations by Germany. 
Germany has been in every instance the ag- 
gressor and, so far as Great Britain has re- 
plied in kind, she is justified by numerous 
precedents or by the law of military necessity. 

Germany first mined the North Sea in vio- 
lation of neutral rights if not of belligerent 
rights. She made no provision for the safety 
of neutral vessels. Thereupon Great Britain 
placed mines in the same waters, but what is 
all important, she made careful provision for 
the safety of neutral vessels. Germany first 
dropped bombs from Zeppelins upon unde- 
fended cities and towns and non-combatants. 
Then, if reports are true, the allies retaliated 
by dropping bombs upon Frieburg and Murem- 
burg. A German squadron of war vessels 
made a raid upon unfortified English coast 
towns killing many civilians including women 
and children. It was only after the German 
government took possession of food stuffs that 
Great Britain declared them contraband, which 
she had a perfect right to do. Germany, how- 

[116] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

ever, declared this attempt to starve her people 
violated the rules of war and justified her own 
counter violation by piratical submarines. She 
admits that food for her army is contraband, 
but non-contraband for civilians. There are 
no civilians in Germany. She has repeatedly 
declared that the people and army are one. 
Bismarck said, * ' The German army is an army 
of the folk itself. It represents the whole Ger- 
man people." Twenty-two German universi- 
ties unite in the following declaration to for- 
eign universities: *'Our army comprises the 
whole nation from the first to the last man." 
Thus every man is a soldier and every woman 
a daughter of a regiment. How then can 
Germany pretend that food for the people is 
not food for the army and consequently that 
all importations of food are not properly con- 
traband? Her logic is further embarrassed 
by the fact that she has confiscated the food 
throughout the country. Her promise that all 
imported food shall go to non-combatants only, 
cannot be taken seriously since she has officially 
declared that ''Necessity knows no law" which 
includes the law of veracity. 

In general it may be said that Great Britain 
has sought to carry on war in accordance with 
international law, while Germany has trampled 
upon that law at every step. Already twenty- 
five neutral vessels have been destroyed by 
submarine mines indiscriminately laid by 
Germany, while up to the present time not a 
[117] 



''Made in Germany'' 

single neutral vessel has suffered from mines 
laid by England. 

In spite of these facts one constantly hears 
such statements as ''It will not do for us to 
condemn either side exclusively"; "Both sides 
are equally guilty." So far as silence can 
speak, the United States has said this, thereby 
doing great injustice to the Allies and giving 
great encouragement to Germany. This is be- 
nevolent neutrality. 

The course pursued hy the United States 
in the case of the Belgian Mission is an- 
other instance of benevolent neutrality hy our 
government. 

Not only treaty obligations but international 
law prohibited Germany from entering Bel- 
gium. Her presence there was therefore a 
trespass. 

All hostilities were illegal ; all killing of Bel- 
gians was murder; all burning of buildings 
was arson ; all seizing of property was pillage ; 
all levies of money, taking of hostages and 
other acts were the acts of brigands. That 
these things were done by an army in no way 
alters the character of their acts. In resisting 
them the Belgians, according to the Hague 
conventions, committed no act of war, but law- 
fully defended their property, their homes and 
their lives. 

All this is a matter of supreme concern to 
all neutral countries, not only because of hu- 
mane considerations, but especially because of 

[118] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

the violation of international law which is 
their own law and as sacred as their municipal 
law. 

Acting npon this just assumption, the Bel- 
gian government in September last sent a Mis- 
sion, consisting of her Minister of Justice and 
three Ministers of State, to the United States 
to lay before the President, "An account of 
the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and 
of the laws of war on Belgian territory." 

The President received the Mission. It laid 
before him the violation of Belgian neutrality 
and the atrocities committed by the German 
army. Among these were the killing of citi- 
zens, the massacre of Aerschot and the whole 
revolting story of burning, killing, extortion, 
seizing hostages and the use of women as 
screens against bullets. Names, places, dates 
and all details for verification were given. All 
these acts were not only violations of the laws 
of war but barbarous. 

The President listened to the story and must 
have been profoundly moved. He told the Mis- 
sion that, while as a neutral he could not con- 
duct an ex parte investigation, he would favor 
an international investigation at the end of the 
war. 

So far, the course of the President was wise 
and statesmanlike, but he left undone the thing 
he should have done. He should have protested 
not to Germany alone, but in a note to all the 
belligerents and to all nations against all vio- 
[119] 



''Made in Germany'* 

lations of the laws of war. Such protest was 
due from this great nation. It was not only 
perfectly consistent with the strictest neutral- 
ity, but neutrality itself demanded it. All 
considerations of public morality and law de- 
manded it. No offence could possibly have 
been taken by any belligerent from such a 
protest courteously and impartially worded. 
Other neutrals would have followed our exam- 
ple and, as intimated by Sir Edward Grey, such 
protest would undoubtedly have led to a dimin- 
ution of the horrors of the war. 

The President knew that at least a part of 
the indictment, the illegal invasion of Belgium, 
was true. He had copies of the posted orders 
of German officers to shoot hostages and other 
innocent civilians. These inhuman orders 
alone called upon the President to protest. 
The agonizing cries of thousands of wounded 
and dying men innocent of wrong called upon 
him to protest. Outraged international law in 
thunder tones called upon him to protest. 
Every nation in the world should have pro- 
tested. Every community, every church, every 
brotherhood, every man and woman on the face 
of the earth might well have protested. Uni- 
versal justice and mercy pleaded with the Pres- 
ident to protest. The brave but bleeding Bel- 
gians, being crucified for their devotion to the 
sovereignty of law and the sanctity of treaties, 
called upon him to protest. Such protest was 
due the King of Belgium and his highest dig- 

[120] 



Mights and Duties of Neutrality 

nitaries who had crossed the ocean to ob- 
tain it. It was due the humane people of the 
United States and all other countries, who 
were paralyzed at this relapse from civilized 
warfare into the blood-curdling cruelties of 
savages. 

We are told that these charges are made by 
enemies and are not true. Let us see. We 
have before us the fac-simile copies of twelve 
proclamations and scores of orders issued by 
German commanders, posted in public places, 
dated, signed and certified. Any one can ver- 
ify them. No one denies them. They teem 
with such phrases as ''Shoot on the spot.'^ 
* ' The whole place will be burned down. " ' ' The 
town will be razed in a quarter of an hour." 
''It was with my consent that the general had 
the whole place burned down and about one 
hundred people shot." (The actual number 
was four hundred.) "Hostages have been 
taken and on the first attempt to destroy the 
telegraph, they will be immediately shot." 
"The town of Wavre will hand over $600,000 
or be set on fire," and so on ad infinitum et ad 
nauseum. 

In the face of facts so open that he who runs 
may read, twenty-two German universities 
have united in sending a formal protest to 
foreign universities, denying these accusations 
against German troops, and we are bound to 
believe they are sincere. It should be borne 
in mind, however, that German universities 
[121] 



''Made in Germany'^ 

are under government control and must 
think, speak and act largely as government 
directs. 

The charges by Germans that the allies were 
using dumdum bullets were entitled to the 
same consideration as those made by the Bel- 
gian Mission. It was not enough for the Pres- 
ident simply to receive the charges and dismiss 
the complainants. Something more was due 
the representatives of a nation that waited 
upon the President and formally presented 
grave charges that weapons known only to 
savage warfare were being used. The Presi- 
dent should have expressed his full sympathy 
with the views of the protestants and, though 
declining an ex parte investigation, or to pro- 
nounce judgment in the matter, he should have 
sent a solemn protest to all belligerents, against 
the use of dumdum bullets as a violation of 
the international laws of war, to which the 
United States was a party and under the most 
solemn obligations to uphold. His failure to 
do this was a distinct favor to the Allies and 
a distinct injury to Germany, an instance of 
benevolent neutrality having all the force 
of an unneutral act. It was none the less 
iso because of its smaller significance in 
comparison with the charges of the Belgian 
Mission. 

Our President and all others who object that 
our protest against violation of the laws of 
war would have been offensive to Germany 

[122] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

seem to forget that Germany herself officially 
appeared before the President and requested 
him to make such protest. 

It has been objected that this view of the 
duty of the United States would have required 
us to be continually protesting against every 
alleged violation of the laws of war. Why 
not? This is exactly what the United States 
is doing in her own territory. Every day she 
is making complaints, that is, protesting 
against the violation of her laws and doing 
all she can to put a stop to it. No one criti- 
cises such acts as meddlesome or undignified. 
AVhy then should she be silent under the spe- 
cious plea of neutrality, when her larger and 
more sacred law, because common to all na- 
tions, is trampled upon? That such silence 
helps the law breaker and injures the sufferer 
will not be denied. This is benevolent neutral- 
ity and a violation of all law common, inter- 
national and moral. 

It may be objected that this view would 
require us to support our protest with force 
which would mean war. It certainly would, 
unless we were honorably released from such 
obligation by agreement, distance, unprepared- 
ness or other circumstance. If the United 
States belongs to the family of nations we can- 
not escape its obligations. Can we claim its 
benefits and decline its burdens? Can we 
demand the protection of international laws 
and then refuse to help support them? The 

[123] 



"Made in Germany" 

President answers in the affirmative. We 
answer in the negative. 

The obligation to take up arms for the en- 
forcement of international law is precisely 
what is contemplated by collective action to 
establish an international court with a police 
force, which would be an army, to prevent any 
nation from making war. 

Another objection against protests is that 
they might *' involve us in serious complica- 
tions." The objectors wisely refrain from 
making any suggestions as to how this might 
happen. It is a gratuitous assumption and a 
bogey. We have already made repeated pro- 
tests far more objectionable, because relating 
exclusively to our own interests, but no ** seri- 
ous complications" have followed or are likely 
to follow. How much less likely then are such 
''serious complications," when our protests 
concern matters in which our sole interest is 
the integrity and sanctity of international law 
and the blessings that follow its observance? 

Our distinguished ex-president, William H. 
Taft, endorses President Wilson's course and 
says, he ''would not have interfered by diplo- 
matic protest regarding the invasion of Bel- 
gium." Is a protest interference? To inter- 
fere is to meddle in matters that do not concern 
us. Did not the violation of international law 
in the invasion of Belgium concern us? Are 
we not a member of the family of nations so 
that international law is our law as well? If 

[124] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

so are we "interfering" wlien we ask that the 
law be observed? We should constantly bear 
in mind the fact that all jurists hold that inter- 
national law is the common law of the land. 
It was our legal duty, therefore, to protest 
against its violation in the invasion of Belgium. 

There was another and infinitely more bind- 
ing obligation to protest resting upon the 
United States, and that was the moral obliga- 
tion imposed upon us by the behests of our 
Christian religion and the common conscience 
of mankind. This is the Suprema Lex tower- 
ing above all human laws and treaties to which 
all men, all presidents and nations, all kings 
and potentates and peoples owe immediate and 
unconditional obedience. Any neutrality that 
defies this law is vicious and unneutral in its 
very nature. 

It was and still is the mandate of this su- 
preme law, that a solemn protest be made 
against the unrighteousness of the invasion of 
Belgium and the hordes of murderers, incen- 
diaries and brigands who were turned loose 
upon her soil. 

Closely akin to the foregoing objection that 
a protest would be *' interference" is the one 
expressed as follows, ''We should mind our 
own business." 

This is precisely the position first taken by 

a gentleman by the name of Cain: ''Am I my 

brother's keeper?" What business is it of 

ours how the laws of nations are violated? 

[125] 



"Made in Germany" 

Wliat do we care how many Belgians are mur- 
dered in cold blood? "Mind our own busi- 
ness!" That is just what the chief priests 
said to Judas when he begged them to take 
back the thirty pieces of silver because he had 
betrayed innocent blood: ''What is that to 
us? see thou to that;" ''We mind our own 
business." That is what the priests and Le- 
vites said as they passed by on the other side, 
leaving the poor man who had been robbed and 
wounded to suffer and die by the side of the 
road. "Mind our own business" is the literal 
translation of the diplomatic language of the 
President to the envoys of Belgium and Ger- 
many when they laid before him the alleged 
violations of the laws not only of nations but of 
humanity. 

Ex-President Taft says, "A neutral nation 
which fails to protest against violations of the 
laws of war as between belligerents, cannot be 
said to acquiesce in those violations or to rec- 
ognize them in any way as a precedent which 
will embarrass us. ' ' This dictum seems faulty 
for several reasons. 

(1) It ignores the fact that "the laws of 
war" are our own laws. This fact alone set- 
tles the matter. 

(2) Mr. Taft, when president, was not 
silent when the laws were violated, but vig- 
orously protested in the proper manner. Had 
he not done so he would have acquiesced in 
their violation. 

[126] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

(3) If a member of a family comonits a 
series of crimes and the other members stand 
silently by making no protest, would Mr. Taft 
say ''They could not be said to acquiesce in 
those violations of law"? 

(4) This dictum is hostile to a maxim which 
universal experience has sanctioned, namely: 
"Silence gives consent," that is, failure to pro- 
test is acquiescence. 

(5) Mr. Taft says, ''Wlien the action of a 
belligerent directly affects our commercial in- 
terests, then we must protest or acquiesce in 
the wrong." In one breath he says failure to 
protest is not acquiescence and in the next 
breath he says failure to protest is acquies- 
cence. In matters of commerce we are bound 
to protest, but in matters of morals we have no 
concern ! 

(6) He says such protest would ''Injure 
our attitude of neutrality." This assumes that 
we must be neutral toward the violation of 
international laws. Does our "attitude of 
neutrality" require us to keep still when inter- 
national law is violated? Strict neutrality 
merely refuses material aid to either side. It 
does not require or imply neutrality or indif- 
ference toward the violation of the laws of 
v/ar. 

(7) The most serious objection to this posi- 
tion is its absolute divorce from morality. The 
matter is treated as if it were one of expedi- 
ency merely. All questions of right and honor, 

[127] 



''Made in Germany'* 

of justice and humanity, and all reverence for 
international law are carefully eliminated. The 
wicked invasion of Belgium, the wholesale 
extortion, burning, pillage and murder have 
no claim to notice upon the United States! 
We are and must be neutral toward this ini- 
quity; neutral toward the violation of the 
moral law of the universe ; neutral toward the 
sufferings of our fellow men; neutral espe- 
cially toward the cries of the wounded, the 
groans of the dying, the streaming tears of 
widowed wives, sonless mothers and the home- 
less, starving women and children of Belgium ! 
Undoubtedly we should ''abhor that which is 
evil, ' ' but let us keep still about it, since a pro- 
test would, in the words of Mr. Taft, "injure 
our attitude of neutrality ! ' ' 

Opinions differ as to whether the Hague 
conventions are binding upon neutrals and bel- 
ligerents. The last article says that unless all 
belligerents sign them they are null. Servia 
did not sign them. If all had signed it is con- 
ceded that these conventions would have cre- 
ated a treaty to which the United States was 
a signatory, and that we should have been 
bound to protest against its violation; as it is 
we are not so bound. This is Mr. Taft's posi- 
tion. Is it tenable? Suppose the Hague con- 
ventions, as such, are not legally binding, it is 
a non sequitur to infer that we should not pro- 
test against their violations. We are not le- 
gally bound to be grateful, but it does not 
[128] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

follow that we should not protest against 
ingratitude. What the Hague conventions con- 
demned were moral wrongs. Moreover, pre- 
existing international law had already forbid- 
den these things, so that they were illegal as 
well. Let us suppose a parallel case. 

A convention resolves that theft be prohib- 
ited, but unless all the members sign the reso- 
lution it is not in force. Very soon a member 
begins to steal. Could any one object to a 
protest on the ground that all the members did 
not sign the resolution? If not why not? 
Because it is wrong to steal. Because two pre- 
existing laws, one moral and one criminal for- 
bade it. The resolution was only declaratory 
although it emphasized the pre-existing laws. 

Turn now to the Hague conventions. They 
prohibit the invasion of a neutral nation and 
killing her people, but unless all the belliger- 
ents sign the conventions they are not in 
force. Very soon Germany invaded Belgium 
and killed her people. Could any one object 
to a protest on the ground that all the members 
had not signed the conventions'? If not why 
not? Because such invasion and killing are 
wrong. Because two pre-existing laws, one 
moral and one international forbade them. 
The conventions were only declaratory, al- 
though they emphasized the pre-existing laws. 

If the conventions did not legally, per se, 
demand a protest, the two other laws did 
demand one. They are the laws of our own 
[129] 



''Made in Germany'' 

and all other nations. Moreover, the Hague 
conventions are morally binding, since they 
register the moral convictions and pledges of 
a large majority of the forty-three nations 
represented. Add to this the obligation of 
the other pre-existing moral and international 
laws, and the United States may well feel that 
the Hague conventions have all the dignity and 
force of positive laws, binding upon us, and 
against the violation of which we are bound to 
protest by every consideration of honor and 
justice.* 

A prominent religious journal expresses the 
fear of some that a protest ^' would have car- 
ried this nation to the verge of war. ' ' In what 
would the offence consist? We have already 
made several protests and no offence has been 
taken. We protested against England's deten- 
tion of our ships in the search for contraband. 
No one thought of war in the matter. Again 
we protested against the warships of belliger- 
ents hovering about our coasts just outside the 
three miles limits, and again against the gen- 
eral use of our flag by British merchantmen, 
and again against the prohibition of all com- 
mercial intercourse by sea with Germany other 
than by legal blockade. No war or sign of war 

*I am indebted to the Honorable Theodore Roosevelt for the following sug- 
gestion received after this was in type: "You are quite right in saying that we 
should have interfered for Belgium even if the Hague Conventions had not de- 
manded it. But, as a matter of fact, they did demand it. When on August 3rd , 
Germany invaded Belgian territory Germany was not at war with either Servia 
or Montenegro. All the belligerents, so far as Germany was concerned, were 
signers of the Hague Convention; and there is no excuse for Germany's action 
and no excuse for our inaction. And we must not shrink from war if war is 
necessary to righteousness." (The italics are ours.) 

[130] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

has followed tliese protests. We have also 
protested against Germany's unlawful subma- 
rine method of warfare and threatened, in case 
of the loss of American ships or lives, that we 
''should be constrained to hold the Imperial 
government of Germany to a strict account- 
ability." Did this protest and threat bring us 
''to the verge of war"? Not at all. We do 
not want war. 

A courteous protest to Germany against the 
invasion of Belgium, the killing of her citizens 
and other unlawful acts, could not be in any 
sense a casus belli. On the contrary there is 
every reason to believe that such protest would 
have appealed to the sentiments of justice, 
humanity and reverence for law that, in spite 
of German acts, must be struggling for ex- 
pression in the German breast. 

Such protest should be couched in the most 
courteous and friendly terms. It should state 
that, inasmuch as the United States was a 
member of the family of nations, owing alle- 
giance to and bound by the rules and regula- 
tions for the conduct of war, as established by 
international law, she felt it to be her privilege 
and duty to call the attention of all belligerents 
and neutral nations to the requirements of 
these laws, and to the imperative necessity of 
upholding them. It should recite the alleged 
infractions of these laws without pronouncing 
judgment, or necessarily naming accused bel- 
ligerents. It should then solemnly protest 
[131] 



"Made in Germany" 

against these and all violations of international 
law, and warn all nations that they would be 
held responsible by the great family of nations 
for such violations. It should then urge all 
nations to utter a similar protest and warning. 
We believe such a protest, especially if fol- 
lowed by other neutrals, would have made a 
profound impression and have mitigated the 
horrors of the war. Had it anticipated the 
invasion of Belgium, it might have prevented 
it. It is too late to prevent what has happened, 
but it is not too late to influence the future. 
It is never too late to do right. Whenever we 
refuse to do the right thing, we are helping the 
party that is doing wrong, and this is benevo- 
lent neutrality. 

The Neutkality op Ignoeafce 

There is some excuse for the neutrality of 
ignorance on the part of those who, for lack 
of time or opportunity, are unable to learn 
the facts connected with the war, and so to 
form an intelligent judgment. Neutrality in 
such cases is the only honest position to take. 
Some, however, profess to be neutral on the 
ground that the truth which would justify them 
in taking sides is not now obtainable. 

A writer fresh from the scenes of war, where 
he had spent several months, says, ''Americans 
will be amazed to hear the truth about the war 
in Europe," and he adds that ''the news we get 
is distorted by the English to suit their own 
[132] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

purposes." "We looked eagerly through his 
address for facts or items of information, which 
of course he must have had to justify his 
sweeping assertion, but we looked in vain. He 
did not give even a hint of the things at which 
we should be ' ' amazed, ' ' and the fair inference 
is that he could not. It was an instance of the 
fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium and 
amounted only to the stereotyped personal 
opinion of the German apologist posing as a 
neutral. 

We do not believe that the end of the war 
will add to our knowledge of its origin, causes 
and conduct thus far. The means of knowledge 
in our day are too many and certain to leave 
us in any doubt concerning these things. All 
history bearing upon the war, all material facts 
leading up to it, all essential diplomatic corre- 
spondence preceding it, all the preparations, 
all the books, lectures and speeches that for 
years have been advocating it, and all the 
objects to be sought by it, are known to us in 
all fullness and completeness. The points that 
are in dispute are wholly immaterial. No 
future day or age will begin to have a knowl- 
edge of the war so clear, accurate and complete 
as we now possess. Minor details and incidents 
will appear, but lapse of time will obscure far 
more truth than it will bring to light. 

Of course there are remote causes of this 
war; there are remote causes of everything. 
The chain of cause and effect runs back to 
[133 J 



''Made in Germany'' 

Adam. Eemote and indirect causes open the 
field of speculation where the human mind 
delights to roam. No just judgment, however, 
as to the responsibility for this war or any- 
other is possible that is based on causes indi- 
rect, remote, historical, philosophical, political, 
military, racial, physical, psychological or 
moral running back through millenniums. A 
just judge and jury ask, *'Who committed this 
crime?" The remote causes are properly 
excluded as irrelevant and the perpetrator is 
declared guilty and punished. 

Over against this view there is an antiquated 
cast of mind like that of Professor Casaubon, 
very scholarly and wholly untrammeled by 
common sense, which assures us that near 
vision, owing to passion and prejudice, is sub- 
ject to intellectual astigmatism and is unreli- 
able, that distance alone furnishes that calm 
and dispassionate mood for investigation that 
yields assured results. As distance increases, 
the object becomes ever clearer, and not until 
it passes entirely out of sight do we have all 
the conditions for perfect vision. Only give 
us sufficient time and we shall discover where 
Homer was born, who wrote Shakespeare's 
plays, that no such character as Shakespeare 
ever lived, and the writings attributed to him 
were several hundred years earlier or later 
than the traditional date. 

More seriously, we assert that there is a class 
of minds that finds satisfaction in ignorance, 
[134] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

in case of controversy or conflict between their 
fellow men. In tliis war they do not know or 
care to know the merits of either side, since 
such knowledge would disturb their neutrality 
of ignorance. "Where ignorance is bliss 'tis 
folly to be wise." The neutral attitude of 
thousands can be accounted for only on this 
ground. They cannot say who brought on the 
war, or what was the cause, or what is the 
object of it. 

By neutrality of ignorance, we would not 
imply that such neutrals are necessarily igno- 
rant men ; on the contrary they are often men 
of ability and learning who have, however, shut 
their eyes to the truth about this war. They 
tell us that many causes political, military, 
commercial and racial, etc. contributed to pro- 
duce it ; that it was a development from ' ' his- 
torical roots;" that it was a necessity in the 
evolution of the race; that, in the nature of 
things, it was bound to come anyway. They 
assign almost every reason for the war except 
the truth which they would not relish and for 
that reason do not and cannot perceive. 

Another variety of the neutrality of igno- 
rance is thus stated by President Arthur T. 
Hadley of Yale University: ''To any one who 
looks at the present European crisis dispas- 
sionately, the striking thing — I may well say 
the pathetic thing — is the failure of the differ- 
ent nations to understand anything ahout one 
another's point of view." 

[135] 



"Made in Germany" 

President Hadley's views carry weight with 
all thinking men, and the article from which 
this sentence is taken is excellent and timely. It 
seems to us, however, that in this quotation the 
exact reverse of what is stated is true. Instead 
of ''The failure of the different nations to 
understand anything about one another's point 
of view," it was because they did understand 
*'one another's point of view" so perfectly, 
that a peaceful solution was impossible. If 
this is true no one can plead the ignorance of 
the belligerents as a reason for being neutral. 
It is just this fact, viz.: that the opposing 
''points of view" were so clearly understood, 
that caused the war, and explains the intensity, 
bitterness and determination with which it is 
carried on. Never was an issue joined better 
understood by the contestants, or more con- 
cisely stated, or more scientifically planned and 
pursued by at least one of the belligerents. 

For the first time in the history of the world, 
almost the entire body of diplomatic corre- 
spondence preceding the war is by each bellig- 
erent officially published to the world. In this 
correspondence "one another's point of view" 
is made perfectly clear. If any attempt was 
made to darken counsel it was promptly ex- 
posed by an opponent. 

It is true the common people in Germany did 

not understand the situation. They were told 

and believed that hostile armies had reached 

their borders and were about to destroy their 

[136 J 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

country, and in obedience to orders they flew 
to arms to repel the imaginary invaders. The 
Kaiser, however, and his whole militaristic 
brood of advisers knew better. Add to this the 
war propaganda carried on for a generation 
by the government, by the military clique 
headed by 35,000 army officers, by the univer- 
sities in which militarism is a part of the 
curriculum and by the schools in which the chil- 
dren are taught that the chief end of man is 
to glorify war and enjoy it forever. 

Let us contrast some of these conflicting 
"points of view" and see if they are hard to 
be understood. 

Germany, through her representatives, has 
for many years been declaring that "War is 
a good thing"; England on the other hand 
declares that "War is hell." Is there any- 
thing obscure about these "points of view"? 
Germany declares that "Might makes right"; 
England replies that "Right makes might." 
Germany declares that ' * Small nations have no 
right to live"; England replies that "Small 
nations have the same right to live as large 
nations." Germany says a treaty is only a 
"scrap of paper"; England says, "A treaty 
is a solemn pledge that must be kept. ' ' Ger- 
many says, "Necessity knows no law"; Eng- 
land replies, ' ' Necessity cannot violate the laws 
of justice and humanity." Germany says, 
"We will fulfill our destiny which is to rule 
the world"; and again the Kaiser says, "In 

[137] 



"Made in Germany'' 

the German dwells that conquering power 
which will open the world to him"; England 
replies, *'You shall not conquer or rule the 
British Empire." 

We could fill page after page with similar 
contrasting declarations. They were uttered, 
not in the midst of ''blind rage and passion," 
but in a time of profound peace. Do they pre- 
sent a ''point of view" difficult to understand? 
On the contrary, in every one of these con- 
trasts, the "point of view" is clear and dis- 
tinct, and it is because the belligerents do 
understand them and perceive that they are so 
absolutely opposite and irreconcilable, that the 
survival of one means the death of the other, 
that they have referred them to the arbitra- 
ment of the sword. 

Substantially the same contrasts exist be- 
tween the "point of view" of Eussia, France 
and Servia, on the one hand and those of Grer- 
many on the other. Austria's "point of view" 
was to reduce Servia to a state of vassalage; 
Servia 's "point of view"" was to maintain her 
independence. Never were "points of view" 
more distinctly stated or better understood by 
all parties. 

If Americans find it difficult to believe that 
the above are authentic quotations from lead- 
ing German officials and writers, let them con- 
sider how exactly the illegal acts and revolting 
cruelties practiced by the Germans in this war 
tally with the barbarous and brutal principles 
[138] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

avowed in these contrasted declarations. Pres- 
ident Hadley well said, ''The outward acts of 
violence are but the symptoms of the nation's 
mental state." 

If it appears that the ''mental state" of each 
belligerent nation was thoroughly understood 
by the others, then there is no ground for an 
attitude of neutrality based on the assumption 
that the belligerents were ignorant of "one 
another's point of view." 

Sympathetic Neuteality 

In international law neutrality is refraining 
from giving material aid to either of the oppos- 
ing belligerents. It has nothing whatever to 
do with the opinions of the neutral. In other 
words, legal neutrality does not extend to the 
feelings, thought or speech of the neutral na- 
tion. It is, therefore, an error to say that the 
United States should observe the spirit as well 
as the law of neutrality. 

The law of neutrality is one of those mala 
proMbita which imply, per se, no moral obliga- 
tion, while the spirit of neutrality goes behind 
the law and deals with its moral aspects and is 
a matter of conscience. We have already seen 
that there is no such thing as moral neutrality. 

Our neutrality should be honest and strictly 
enforced and in these respects the course of 
President Wilson is to be heartily approved. 
What is objected to is the attempt by the Pres- 
ident and others to import into the simple 
[139] 



''Made in Germany'^ 

international principle of neutrality ideas of 
silence and other elements that are not only 
foreign to it, but vicious in their nature and 
mischievous in their consequences. 

A mighty nation of one hundred millions of 
people sees its own and the laws of all govern- 
ments openly flouted, the peaceable inhabitants 
of a sister nation slaughtered in cold blood, 
scores of unoffending merchant ships without 
a moment's notice torpedoed by pirates and 
sunk, carrying down men, women and children, 
and when witnessing this spectacle of fiendish 
brutality and terrible suffering that curdles 
the blood and fills us with maddening indigna- 
tion, are we to be told that neutrality requires 
the people to be neutral in their thoughts and 
the government to keep perfectly silent ? Sym- 
pathetic neutrality answers yes ; we answer no. 

Sympathetic neutrality eliminates all moral 
considerations. It would see nothing wrong in 
the attitude or acts of any of the belligerents. 
It would treat them all alike. It puts the rob- 
ber and the robbed, the guilty and the innocent, 
in the same catalogue and would extend sym- 
pathy alike to all. The position was well illus- 
trated at a certain meeting. A resolution was 
offered endorsing Jesus Christ. A brother 
would not consent to its passage unless a sec- 
tion was added specifying that nothing in the 
resolution shall be construed as reflecting on 
the devil. 

Perhaps the ablest advocate of sympathetic 

[140] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

neutrality is Dr. David Starr Jordan. In an 
address at Springfield, Massachusetts, as re- 
ported in the Republican, Dr. Jordan relieves 
all the belligerents from the responsibility for 
the war. He declared that the attitude of the 
United States should be one of ''Sympathetic 
neutrality." He says, "No one dares to claim 
the credit for this war." He has overlooked 
the claim made in ''The Truth About Ger- 
many" by eleven representative Germans as 
follows, "The Kaiser had the moral courage 
to assume the responsibility of beginning the 
conflict." Overwhelming testimony to the 
same effect is presented in the first chapter 
"Made in Germany." 

We read again, "Servia did not start it." 
"Eussia does not seem to deserve the blame for 
starting it. " " Hundreds of my German friends 
have told me that Germany did not start it." 
"Belgium was not to blame for the war." 
"England is not responsible." "France, far 
weaker in numbers than Germany, did not want 
war. ' ' 

According to this view none of the belliger- 
ents were to blame for the war. Nobody started 
it ! It is a phenomenon to be classed with the 
earthquake, flood or lightning, as wholly inde- 
pendent of men and for which they are in no 
wise responsible. Does Dr. Jordan or anybody 
else really believe this? If it is true, there is 
no question of right or wrong involved any 
more than there would be in a stroke of light- 
[141] 



^'Made in Germany'' 

ning. If this is true, if men are not responsi- 
ble, then another war may start itself at any- 
time and human laws, peace organizations, 
or other preventive measures would have no 
more effect in preventing it than in preventing 
an earthquake. Does any one really believe 
that men can fall upon and murder their inno- 
cent neighbors without moral guilt ? 

We appreciate Dr. Jordan's contribution of 
time and talent to the cause of peace, but we 
firmly believe that men are responsible for this 
war and only the dynamic of Christian ethics 
will ever make men love peace and hate war. 
Furthermore, we think that a group of indi- 
viduals forming a military oligarchy headed 
by the Kaiser believed in this war, wanted it, 
prepared for it, started it, forced it upon other 
nations, refused their entreaties to stop it, and 
are solely responsible for it, and should be held 
to a strict accountability at the hands of out- 
raged law, justice and humanity. 

Dr. Jordan says, ''Military efficiency caused 
the war." This "efficiency" is such, as we 
shall see, that it removes all responsibility for 
the war from men or nations; hence it is to 
be taken literally and not as a figure of per- 
sonification. This brings no relief. '^ Effi- 
ciency" is impersonal. It has no moral char- 
acter. It cannot do right or wrong, and is not, 
therefore, responsible. Back of ''efficiency" 
there is ultimate personality, intelligence and 
responsibility. 

[142] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

A few days before tlie war broke out, we 
stood looking down into the crater of Vesuvius 
already emitting jets of steam and smoke which 
preceded the eruption a few weeks later. What 
caused the eruption? "Would Dr. Jordan say, 
*' volcanic efficiency"? But that explains noth- 
ing. "Efficiency" is merely an agency, never 
an agent. Who is behind "volcanic efficiency" 
and the cause of it? The answer is, the living 
God. The only alternative is atheism with its 
dismal philosophy. 

The doctrine that "military efficiency" 
caused the war opens the way for declaring 
that all the belligerents are its innocent vic- 
tims and alike entitled to our sympathy. This 
is "sympathetic neutrality." 

We cannot allow its advocates any monopoly 
of sympathy. We sympathize with the suffer- 
ings of all our fellow men whether friends or 
foes, innocent or guilty, and in punishment we 
would have "mercy season justice," but that 
punishment must be commensurate with guilt 
is ordained of God and man as essential to the 
existence of society. Punishment should never 
be inflicted in a revengeful or vindictive spirit, 
but rather with infinite pity and sorrow. 

If "military efficiency" is to blame for the 
war it alone should pay the penalty. The final 
sentence should be that "military efficiency" 
pay a fine of two billion dollars and stand 
committed to imprisonment until the fine is 
paid or, if the extreme penalty is imposed and 

[143] 



"Made in Germany" 

it were possible to execute it, that "military 
efficiency" be hanged by the neck until dead. 
Belgium might demur at the sentence but Ger- 
many would submit, if she did not offer to serve 
as hangman. 

We do not deny that ''military efficiency" 
was an agency in bringing on the war, although 
it was shown in the chapter on armaments that 
wars were far more numerous before than since 
the date of great armaments; what we object 
to is the attempt to transfer the blame from 
guilty man to his military machine. It is as 
if George Washington, when a lad and taken 
to task for cutting down a cherry tree, had 
replied, "I ground my little hatchet and the 
hatchet did it with its sharpened edge. I can- 
not tell a lie, father, Hatchet Efficiency cut 
down the tree. I did not do it and am in no 
way to blame!" 

The doctrine of "military efficiency" as the 
cause of the war is the handmaid of sympa- 
thetic neutrality. It is, however, not only mor- 
ally vicious, but a logical fallacy and a denial 
of axiomatic truth. It presents us with a tre- 
mendous effect without any real cause. It 
assures us that eight or ten nations are en- 
gaged in a war that was never started by any- 
body. We see thousands of innocent men, 
women and children murdered, but there is 
no murderer; we see great conflagrations con- 
suming public buildings and houses, but there 
is no incendiary; there are robberies, but no 

[144] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

robbers; in a word, we have in this war the 
most ghastly crime of the ages hut no criminal. 

This doctrine confounds moral distinctions 
in blaming the innocent and the guilty alike. 
For example, the author says, ''For several 
years we have seen the armed nations in a 
situation like that of trains on converging 
tracks rushing at each other." "When, we ask, 
has he seen little Belgium ''rushing" at Ger- 
many, or Servia "rushing" at Austria? By 
what act has France or Russia appeared like 
a train "rushing" at Germany? Can he point 
to a single English train "rushing" toward 
Germany? Dropping the figure, what the 
world now sees is, that for years, Germany has 
been literally laying railroad tracts over barren 
regions, all converging toward the frontiers of 
Belgium and Russia, and over these tracks she 
is now "rushing" her trains loaded with troops 
for aggressive warfare. 

What disturbs us in Dr. Jordan's "sympa- 
thetic neutrality" is its profound silence re- 
specting all moral considerations involved in 
the war. He dwells on the "folly" of war, its 
"cost" and loss of human stock, but has not 
a word to say about the abhorrent immorality, 
the infamous crime and detestable wickedness 
of the men who brought on the war. The 
Christian world is thinking of the cries of men 
torn asunder, writhing in agony and dying on 
the battle-field, the cruelties, sufferings and 
murders, the wrecked homes and hopes, the 
[145] 



"Made in Germany'^ 

broken hearts that refuse to be comforted — 
these are the things the iniquity of which stirs 
the blood of men and moves the heart of the 
Almighty. Compared with these all the mere 
follies of the world, all the money on earth, 
combined with all conceivable loss, as loss only, 
of human stock, have not a feather's weight. 
'' Sympathetic neutrality" led Dr. Jordan to 
say, ''Our duty as a nation outside of the con- 
flict is to know the truth. It is not for us to 
be pro-France, pro-German, or pro-England. 
We must not he pro or anti anything." 

This declaration is remarkable for its bold- 
ness. It sweeps away at one stroke every 
moral consideration involved in the war. For 
us there must be no such thing as justice or 
injustice, truth or falsehood, right or wrong, in- 
nocence or guilt in the beginning, conducting or 
ending of the war ; or if these things exist, we 
must not be for or against them! "We must 
not be pro or anti anything!" We might dis- 
miss this dictum with the words of Emerson, 
"Immoral conclusions spare us much trouble 
-in examining the argument." We will, how- 
ever, give briefly a few reasons for rejecting 
this position. 

(1) It is inconsistent to say in one breath, 
"It is our duty to . . . know the truth," and 
then when we have found it to say, "TFe must 
not be for or against it." This would be "to 
hold the truth in unrighteousness." 

(2) The strictest construction of the inter- 

[146] 



Mights and Duties of Neutrality 

national law of neutrality makes no such de- 
mand. Neutrality refuses material aid to 
either side. It does not require neutrality in 
thought, feeling or speech either on the part 
of the government or citizens. 

(3) A still higher authority has this to say 
about pseudo neutrality. ''He that is not for 
me is against me. ' ' That is, he that is not for 
the truth is against it. "Abhor that which is 
evil, cleave to that which is good." ''Woe to 
them that call evil good and good evil." 

(4) As moral beings men cannot be indif- 
ferent to good and evil. When they have 
decided what is right and what is wrong, con- 
science demands that they be for the one and 
against the other. 

(5) In saying without qualification that, 
"We should not be pro or anti anything," the 
author virtually says we should not be pro- 
God or anti-Satan; pro-murder or anti-mur- 
der ; pro-war or anti-war ; and yet he declares 
himself to be strongly pro-peace and anti- 
war! 

This declaration staggers us. How shall we 
account for it? It seems to us that it is due 
to mental and moral astigmatism, to a blinding 
partiality for Germany. If he merely intended 
to emphasize the importance of our neutrality, 
his language should have stopped short of lan- 
guage that carries him almost if not quite into 
the camp of German apologists, whose incon- 
sistencies, assumptions and sophistries are so 

[147] 



''Made in Germany* 

patent and puerile as to excite wonder and 
disgust in the American mind. 

The Responsibility of the United States 
Respecting the Wae 

The vastness of our territory, population 
and wealth, the virility, liberty, intelligence and 
enterprise of the people, and above all, the high 
standards of religion and morality that pre- 
vail and will be maintained, in spite of tem- 
porary drawbacks, combine to make us as a 
nation the foremost power in the world. 

No higher compliment was ever paid us than 
the recent statement of Earl Grey in London; 
he said, ''The present conflict probably would 
never have taken place, had the policy of Amer- 
ican pacifists, that the signatory nations to the 
Hague conventions should undertake collective 
responsibility for the enforcement of interna- 
tional laws, been adopted." He further says, 
''The neutral powers who signed the Hague 
conventions missed a great opportunity by not 
protesting against the violation of the inter- 
national regulations that occurred in this war, 
which probably would have led to a diminution 
of its horrors." 

The neutral powers not only ''missed a great 
opportunity," they neglected a duty. This is 
the point to be emphasized. This is where the 
United States has signally failed. Our posi- 
tion among the nations, the fact that we pro- 
posed at the Hague the very measure that 
[148] 



nights and Duties of Neutrality 

might have prevented this crime, show that we 
were alive to the importance of maintaining 
the international laws of war, and the fact that 
we signed the conventions, thereby agreeing to 
uphold these laws, renders our failure to pro- 
test the more culpable and humiliating. 

Had we stoutly protested at the outset of 
the war, other neutral nations would in all 
probability have followed our example, for they 
look to us to take the lead in maintaining 
neutral rights. 

The one neutral right above all others in 
importance is to have the international laws of 
war observed by all the belligerents. Great 
indeed is the responsibility resting upon the 
United States in this world crisis to maintain 
the integrity and sovereignty of law. She owes 
it to herself and to her basal principle that 
Liberty is obedience to laiv. She owes it to the 
belligerents tempted to violate international 
law in this awful struggle, and she owes it to 
the world to protest against every infraction 
of those laws that, only after centuries of 
humane and Christian effort, prompted by the 
highest aspirations and hopes of the race for 
unity, brotherhood and love, have crystalized 
into international law, which we should keep 
constantly in mind, is the common law of the 
land. 

The failure to protest against the infraction 
of this law, if as Earl Grey says, it might have 
mitigated the horrors of war, is one of those 
[149] 



''Made in Germany" 

blunders that is worse than a crime. It makes 
the United States responsible for deeds of 
revolting barbarism. It arraigns us before 
the grand jury of the world for international 
infidelity. It is a betrayal of humanity with the 
kiss of diplomacy, and the denial of Christ in 
the house of his friends. It is treason against 
international morality and makes us particeps 
criminis in the invasion of Belgium and in all 
the horrors that have followed. 

It may help us to see ourselves as others see 
us to quote the Toronto ''Globe" as reported 
in the Outlook: ''There is something morally 
wrong with the man, whether Canadian or 
American, who can picture the indescribable 
sufferings of the Belgian people, without a 
sense of rage and indignation at those respon- 
sible for that ruthless and calmly deliberated 
crime. There would be something wrong, cow- 
ardly and criminal in the Canadian nation if, 
under the circumstances, Canada did not at 
once and to the last power, strike for Belgium's 
defence and for the defence of innocence and 
the preservation of honor among the nations. 
More than that, the civilized world will convict 
the American Eepublic of wrong and of cow- 
ardice and of complicity in the worst interna- 
tional crime since Napoleon's unpardoned of- 
fence, if that free nation, itself the heir of all 
the ages of struggle for liberty, does not soon, 
and in terms the world will understand, make 
straight and solemn protest, in the name of 

[150] 



Bights and Duties of Neutrality 

international law, to the world's court of pub- 
lic opinion against Germany's violation of in- 
ternational agreements, to which the United 
States was a pledged party. ... A nation that 
loves righteousness is under compulsion to 
adjure iniquity." 

The doctrine that neutrality, under interna- 
tional law, does not permit of protests when 
the rights of humanity are violated, while it 
permits of protests when the rights of com- 
merce are violated, is a piece of sophistical 
depravity. 

The United States, notwithstanding her neu- 
trality, has repeatedly protested against inter- 
ference with our trade. On what ground! Be- 
cause such interference was in violation of 
international law. If such violation calls for 
protest in one case, why not in another? It 
is replied that it is our duty to protect Amer- 
ican property and lives, but not the property 
and lives of other nations. The first clause is 
right ; the last is wrong. 

By the Hague conventions we made a treaty 
with other nations, that we would insist upon 
the observance of certain rules and regulations, 
in case of war, for the protection of the citizens 
of belligerent nations. In other words, we 
have agreed to help protect the lives and prop- 
erty of other nations. The United States and 
Germany both signed that treaty. 

Travel, commerce and migrations have knit 
all nations together. When one suffers all suf- 
[151] 



''Made in Germany'^ 

fer. The principle that no man liveth unto 
himself is equally true of nations. They are 
one family under the shelter of international 
law. The attempt, under the plea of neutrality, 
to escape the obligation of this law to prevent 
the sufferings of our fellow men, and then to 
claim its benefits for the protection of our 
commerce, is dishonorable. 

Entirely apart from the Hague conventions, 
it should be noted that international laws have 
a binding force as well as treaties. Unless, 
therefore, we are to adopt the perfidious doc- 
trine that a treaty is only ''a scrap of paper," 
we are in honor bound to protest against every 
violation of international law, and the failure 
to do so is likely to be ascribed to diplomatic 
pusillanimity and moral cowardice. 

Many who object to protests, save such as 
relate to property, enlarge upon the great op- 
portunity that will come to President Wilson 
as mediator between the warring nations. It 
is an unfortunate view. It suggests that by 
acquiescing in the lawlessness and brutalities 
of the war, the nations will be more likely to 
accept the mediatorial offices of our President. 
This is a humiliating thought. It would be 
doing evil that good might come. President 
Wilson is a high-souled man, but his idea of 
neutrality has no sanction in international law. 
It is strained. It is immoral and impossible. 
It has made the United States, more than any 
other neutral nation, responsible for crimes 
[152] 



nights and Duties of Neutrality 

and barbarities that shock the world, and leave 
an indelible stain upon the pages of history. 
It has encouraged a course of international 
lawlessness that is now coming home to plague 
us in the destruction of our commerce and in 
endangering the lives of our citizens. Under 
the guise of neutrality, we have been playing 
fast and loose with the principles of morality 
and we must now take the consequences. Such 
has been the result of the failure to protest 
against the violation of international law. 

We are not criticising the President's polit- 
ical neutrality. This he has maintained with 
signal ability. It is his attempt at moral neu- 
trality that has contributed to the horrors of 
the war and involved him in serious moral 
entanglements. For example, it leads him to 
say, ''No nation is fit to sit in judgment upon 
any other nation." Has he not sat "in judg- 
ment" upon the acts of England and Germanj^ 
in repeated protests ? Wlien he reviewed Ger- 
many 's submarine policy, protested against it, 
and threatened to hold Germany to strict ac- 
count for the loss of American ships or lives, 
did he do this without exercising any judgTQent 
in the matter, on the ground that ''No nation 
is fit to sit in judgment upon any other 
nation?" 

The President is even more unfortunate in 

saying, "Our whole duty is summed up in the 

motto, 'America first!' " On the contrary, our 

whole duty is summed up in the motto, Right- 

[153] 



''Made in Germany'' 

eousness first! Before America, comes justice 
and humanity. ''America first" is next of kin 
to the abominable motto, "My country, right 
or wrong." The President ignores wha^t is 
fundamental and eternal in human relations 
and substitutes selfishness. Our religion puts 
God our Father and man our brother first. The 
world's highest genius said, "Think of thyself 
last," and this note of altruism is echoed on 
every page of the New Testament, 

The President involves himself in another 
entanglement in saying, ' ' The basis of our neu- 
trality is sympathy for mankind." How can 
this be true? How can one say in the same 
breath, "Our whole duty is summed up in the 
motto, 'America first,' " and then, "the basis 
of our neutrality is sympathy for mankind"? 
Selfishness and sympathy are not traveling 
companions. No, the basis of our neutrality is 
not "sympathy" but selfishness. 

When in defiance of our treaties and laws, 
peaceful Belgium is invaded, her cities burned 
and her inhabitants slaughtered in cold blood, 
it is not a neutrality of sympathy, but a neu- 
trality of selfishness that freezes the admin- 
istration's heart and seals its lips against these 
outrages. 

The greatest opportunity of President Wil- 
son's administration and of his life lay open 
to him, and may not yet be closed, — the oppor- 
tunity to place this great nation at the head of 
the honor roll of nations, by sounding the trum- 

[154] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

pet call of law and justice, of humanity and 
righteousness. Like the shot at Concord it 
would be heard round the world and remem- 
bered through all time. 

Our President may not be invited to act as 
mediator. If the feeling should gather strength 
that he has been seeking the personal honor 
and glory of such an office, and has sacrificed 
moral convictions in the interest of his candi- 
dacy, he will not be invited to serve as 
mediator. 

The one thing that the United States and all 
neutral nations should do, and do at once, is 
to enter a strong and solemn protest against 
the violation of the rules of war as prescribed 
by international law. 

The following resolutions were adopted in 
Boston, December 7, 1914, by a body of min- 
isters whose high standing would command 
appreciation by their fellow citizens every- 
where. They express so well the sentiments of 
the American people that we quote them in 
extenso. 

A¥hereas, by the Articles of the Second 
Hague Convention, it was expressly stipulated 
as follows: — 

Article I. The territory of neutral powers 
is inviolable. 

Article II. Belligerents are forbidden to 
move troops or convoys of either munitions of 
war or supplies across the territory of a neu- 
tral power. 

[155 J 



"Made in Germany" 

Article X. The fact of a neutral power re- 
sisting even by force attempts to violate its 
neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act. 

Article L. No general penalty, pecuniary or 
otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population 
on account of the acts of individuals, for which 
they cannot be regarded as jointly and sev- 
erally responsible. 

And "Whereas it appears that Grermany and 
the United States of America, with other great 
powers, were signatory to these conventions 
and, therefore, partners in creating them, and 
in thus creating and signing pledged themselves 
to use at least all possible moral force for the 
enforcing of such conventions, 

And Whereas it appears that Germany has 
violated each of the above, if not others as well, 
in that she has violated the neutrality of Bel- 
gium, has transported troops, etc., across her 
neutral territory, has punished her resistance 
as a hostile act and taken vengeance on her as 
though she were an enemy and a belligerent, 
has at Vise, Louvain and Brussels exacted se- 
vere penalties, both in money and life for the 
acts of individuals; 

Therefore be it Resolved, That we regret 
exceedingly that after a period of four months 
no remonstrance has been issued from the 
United States against this breach of faith, not 
only with a neutral power but also with the 
other nations who were partners with her, 
leaving it possible for history to judge that 

[156] 



Rights and Duties of Neutrality 

we look upon those conventions as ''mere 
scraps of paper," 

And be it further Eesolved, That we urge 
and, so far as we have the right, demand that 
our representatives and the authorities upon 
whom such duties devolve, shall make all neces- 
sary investigation as to the accuracy of the 
facts stated above, and if they shall be found 
to be true, that the United States of America 
shall immediately thereafter file with the Ger- 
man Empire, and the other nations who were 
signatory to the Articles of the Hague Con- 
vention, our positive remonstrance against the 
violation of the neutrality of Belgium and this 
violation of the partnership with our nation 
in that solemn Treaty. 



[157] 



CHAPTER V 
GERMAN CULTURE 

CULTUEE AND THE WaK 

What lias culture to do with war? Much 
every way in Germany. To an American, cul- 
ture and war seem unrelated. One might as 
well talk of chemistry and war or mathematics 
and war. In Germany, however, culture plays 
an important part in the war. The highest 
authority declares that the war is waged in 
behalf of culture. Bernhardi says, ''The Ger- 
mans must, regardless of the rights and inter- 
ests of other peoples, fight their way to 
predominance and force upon humanity their 
culture and spirit." 

' ' Only war, ' ' writes Professor Munsterberg, 
''can adjust the power of countries to the 
changing stages of their inner development 
(culture)." 

The Kaiser speaks as follows: "Only the 
German is left to defend and above all to cul- 
tivate great conceptions." 

"Germany and the Next War," by Bern- 
hardi, says, "War is the greatest factor in the 
furtherance of culture." 

A learned professor writes, "Germany has 

[158] 



German Culture 

the highest culture and is entitled to the he- 
gemony of the continent. ' ' 

Professor Eudolf Eucken bitterly reproaches 
England for having made war on German cul- 
ture, which demanded "The necessary advance 
through Belgian territory." This ''advance" 
was in behalf of her ' ' culture, ' ' which she now 
proposes to force upon the world. 

Dr. Stanton Coit of London, a great admirer 
of German culture, declares that, "Germany 
erred in attempting to spread her culture by 
the bayonet." 

These and scores of similar statements would 
seem to show that the one great object of Ger- 
many in beginning this war was to force upon 
the world her culture. We shall offer some 
suggestions on this point at the conclusion of 
this chapter. 

CuLTUEE Defined 

America knows nothing of any such culture 
as is implied in the foregoing paragraphs. In 
America culture means, "enlightenment ac- 
quired by mental and moral training; refine- 
ment in manners and taste. ' ' 

Dr. Coit says, "No nation is so lacking in 
a kind of culture that means delicacy of taste 
as Germany. ' ' In Germany culture means ' ' the 
employment of all the devices of man for the 
benefit of the community. ' ' In addition to art, 
literature, philosophy and language, special 
emphasis is laid upon physical and mechanical 
[159] 



"Made in Germany" 

science and its application to industry. It sus- 
tains intimate relations with beer, sausage, 
potatoes and rye bread. With the Germans 
efficiency is culture. In America culture is the 
flower garden of the farm; in Germany it is 
the farm itself. 

Professor Rudolf Eucken, a foremost ethical 
philosopher of Germany, says, "To us more 
than to any other people is entrusted the true 
structure of human existence; as an intelligent 
people we have, irrespective of creed, worked 
for soul depth in religion, for scientific thor- 
oughness, for the creation of independent per- 
sonality in our educational methods. . . . All 
this constitutes possessions of which mankind 
cannot be deprived." 

Notwithstanding the vagueness and conceit 
of this declaration, it is undoubtedly true that 
the "possessions" or ''goods" that constitute 
German culture may all be grouped under the 
three heads of ''Scientific thoroughness," 
"Soul Depth in religion," and "Independent 
personality in educational methods." 

Scientific Cultuee 

"The whole realm of human knowledge has 
been concentrated in the German brain." So 
writes Bernhardi, whose book has been called 
the Bible of Germany. Any doubt from any 
source about this estimate of the "German 
brain" would be, to the German, only proof of 
its correctness. We observe in passing, that 
[160] 



German Culture 

Bernhardi's book has so shocked the world, 
outside of Germany, that German apologists, 
as represented by Dr. Bernhard Dernberg, now 
assure us that ''Bernhardi was retired from 
the service just because his writings did not 
meet with the approval of his superiors. ' ' We 
reply first, that no evidence is offered in sup- 
port of this assertion; second, Bernhardi has 
passed the age of sixty-five when army officers 
are retired; third, and quite conclusive, in the 
beginning and prosecution of the war, the Ger- 
man army has defied the legal and humane 
rules of war, and adopted to the letter the 
cruel, brutal and grossly immoral principles 
and practices prescribed by Bernhardi. 

Falling off a few points from Bernhardi 's 
unique estimate of the *' German brain," Dr. 
Dernberg says, ''Germany stands in the first 
rank of applied science." Competent judges 
deny this. We have never observed from any 
source a disposition to detract from Germany's 
scientific culture. On the contrary, America 
at least has been proud of Germany's attain- 
ments in this respect. We have rejoiced at 
the way in which she has applied scientific 
principles to industry and labor. We have un- 
feigned admiration for her system of municipal 
administration, her protection of the people by 
means of insurance against accident, sickness, 
old age and widowhood. In these and other 
respects, we recognize Germany's "scientific 
thoroughness." It is conceded that Germany 

[161] 



''Made in Germany'' 

excels in scientific organization, in method and 
in plodding application. The German mind, 
however, is not original, inventive or acute; 
but slow, profound and unyielding. This ac- 
counts for its painstaking thoroughness. 

We Americans have a habit of admiring any- 
thing from abroad. Label an article ''im- 
ported" and its price was enhanced even 
though it was inferior to the home-made arti- 
cle. This habit was not limited to material 
goods, but extended to all departments of cul- 
ture in art, science and literature. The fact 
that anything was from abroad was accepted 
as evidence of superiority. But the tables are 
now turned. This war has opened our eyes. 
We begin to see that American ''possessions" 
or "goods," in respect to those ideals that 
alone make life worth living, are far superior 
to those of Germany. 

We have said that the assertion that "Ger- 
many stands in the first rank in applied sci- 
ence" is disputed by competent judges. In 
applied science respecting improvements in 
comfort, convenience and conditions of life, 
Germany is far behind France, England or the 
United States. The superiority of German cul- 
ture so loudly proclaimed and widely accepted, 
is now seen to exist quite largely in the over- 
weening conceit and braggadocio illustrated in 
the assertion that, "All knowledge is concen- 
trated in the German brain. ' ' 

An illuminating joint article by Dr. Agnes 

[162] 



German Culture 

Repplier and Dr. J. William White, pnblished 
in the Boston Herald, affirms that neither in 
'' chemistry, electrics or medicine, can the Ger- 
man claim to superiority be admitted or even 
considered. . . . But what of the telephone, 
the telegraph, the steam-boat, the automobile, 
the railroad, the phonograph, the electric light, 
the sewing machine, the photograph, the reaper 
and binder? " 

The same article declares that "Germany 
borrows from others." In all these directions 
and many more, including even the latest in- 
struments of war, ' ' the submarine, the torpedo, 
the revolving or disappearing gun, the machine 
gun, the turreted ship, Germany has been the 
exploiter of discoveries or inventions of other 
races." 

Antiseptic surgery, pronounced the greatest 
discovery of modern times, is due, as this 
article says, to France and England, while 
ansesthesia is due to America. All the com- 
bined discoveries of Germany in medicine can- 
not equal the benefits due to anaesthesia and 
antiseptics. 

No less an authority than Professor John 
Trowbridge, President of the American Acad- 
emy of Arts and Sciences, says in the Atlantic 
Monthly, that Germany now occupies only the 
third place in science. He concedes Germany's 
leadership in organic chemistry, but in *' phys- 
ical science, mathematics and physical chemis- 
try" that make demands upon the highest 
[163] 



"Made in Germany" ' 

powers of the mind, England is assigned the 
first place. 

Eoger Bacon was the founder of physics ; he 
also first outlined the principle of the telescope. 
Young's ^'undulatory theory of light was one 
of the greatest contributions ever made to sci- 
ence." Rumford showed that *'heat was its 
exact equivalent in motion." Faraday was 
* ' the father of the great practical employments 
of electricity." *'It is a fact that the great 
physical hypotheses have been Anglo-Saxon in 
origin. ' ' 

It is claimed that scientific culture cannot 
flourish in an era of militarism. Germany's 
greatest scientific progress was in a time of 
comparative peace between 1840 and 1870. 
Professor Trowbridge says that since Sedan, 
Germany has fallen into third place. During 
this period, however, England contributed 
Maxwell's electric dynamic theory of light, and 
England and France laid the foundations of 
the new great subject of radio-activity. Ger- 
many's discovery of the X-rays he calls ''a 
fortuitous accident. ' ' None of her discoveries, 
however, equal Lord Rayleigh's construction 
of argon. Francis Bacon established the doc- 
trine of inductive reasoning. Newton discov- 
ered the law of gravitation. *'In scientific cul- 
ture, exemplified by the use of the imagination, 
by mathematical knowledge and by philosoph- 
ical insight leading to the performance of cru- 
cial experiments, Great Britain stands first." 
[164] 



German Culture 

The new handbook, ''Who's Who in Sci- 
ence," gives the number of scientists in the 
different countries as a test of civilization. 
The United States has 1,678; England, 1,472; 
Germany, 1,280; France, 423; Austria-Hun- 
gary, 236; Italy, 215; Switzerland, 214; Hol- 
land, 155 ; Sweden, 109 ; Russia, 97 ; Denmark, 
94; Belgium, 90; Norway, 88; Portugal, 49; 
Spain, 41. The small countries of Western 
Europe make relatively the best showing. 

The number of scientists to each million of 
the population is given as follows: — Switzer- 
land, 155; Sweden, 109; Russia, 97; Den- 
mark, 94; Belgium, 90; Norway, 88; Por- 
tugal, 49; Spain, 41. The small countries of 
Western Europe make relatively the best 
showing. 

If these figures are correct or approximately 
so, it will be seen that Germany occupies only 
sixth place in rank. 

Professor Warren Fite who was a student 
in Germany, from personal knowledge says, in 
the New York Nation, as quoted by The Spring- 
field (Massachusetts) Republican, "German 
science is a gift of moderate value . . . and 
of rather bourgeois intellectual quality. . . . 
Germans are the newly lettered, the newly 
sophisticated and alas! the newly rich." He 
compares Berlin with Chicago and says the lat- 
ter is not so proud of its ''night life." Others 
tell us that this "night life" now eclipses Paris 
in its "stodgy imitators." "In the graduate 
[165] 



^'Made in Germany'' 

school, the Ph.D., and the laboratory of re- 
search, the influence of German culture has 
been somewhat devastating." The only de- 
partment of culture in which he concedes Ger- 
man supremacy is music. The Eepublican 
says, ''He might have added that creative 
supremacy in music has now to be shared with 
the French and the Russians. " ' ' Those Amer- 
icans," says Professor Trowbridge, ''who are 
loudest in their praise of German culture often 
argue from an imperfect knowledge of the 
history of science." 

In applied science the United States is mak- 
ing rapid progress. Neither Germany nor any 
other country can point to such a monumental 
work of sanitary science as is presented by 
the Panama canal. A vast region of tropical 
marsh, swarming with disease-carrying mos- 
quitoes and reeking with poisonous miasma, 
that has claimed tens of thousands of human 
lives, was converted by the United States into 
one of the most sanitary and salubrious places 
in the world. 

In the United States, which has given little 
attention to armaments, has just been com- 
pleted the largest dreadnought and the largest 
cannon in the world. The latter is fifty-six 
feet in length and throws a shell weighing 
twenty-four hundred pounds a distance of 
twenty-one miles. It is for the defence of the 
Panama canal. We are not, however, proud 
of it. We will not boast of it and if it should 
[166] 



German Culture 

ever be used against an enemy we would have 
it draped in mourning. 

Germany attributes her rapid material de- 
velopment to her own scientific efficiency ; but 
the facts abundantly show the truth of Profes- 
sor Franklin H. Gidding's assertion that, ''The 
rapid material progress of Germany is largely 
the result of the liberal trade policy of the 
British Empire." 

It may be that in this brief comparison of 
the scientific culture of Germany with that of 
other nations, we have not done the former 
full justice; but it certainly justifies us in 
characterizing the claim that ' ' The whole realm 
of human knowledge has been concentrated in 
the German brain" as puerile bombast, and 
especially in regarding the claim that the high- 
est scientific culture is a ''sacred possession" 
entrusted to Germany alone, and to be forced 
upon the nations by German bayonets, as a 
piece of vanity, insanity and asininity that has 
no counterpart in modern history. 

Eeligious and Moral Cultuee 

Another element of culture in "the true 
structure of human existence," which Pro- 
fessor Eucken says is specially entrusted to 
Germans, he designates as ''Soul depth in 
Religion." 

In any intelligent discussion there must be 
something agreed upon to start with. Just 
as in a race there must be a starting point 
[167] 



"Made in Germany'' 

common to all the competitors, so in discussion, 
certain underlying principles, propositions or 
definitions must be held in common and agreed 
upon as a starting point by all disputants. 
For example, in any discussion of religion it 
must be agreed that religion exists, that it 
is a social institution in all countries and a 
mighty factor in the world; then disputants 
may diverge respecting its origin, nature, 
object, etc. 

It is in these respects that we shall find a 
radical difference between Germans and Amer- 
icans. Americans believe that religion consists 
in the worship and service of God. Germans 
believe that religion, at least very largely, 
consists in the worship and service of the state 
or the Kaiser as the supreme power. The 
Kaiser said to his soldiers, ''You think each 
day of your Emperor. Do not forget God." 
Treitschke says, *'The end all and be all of 
a state is power." Bernhardi approves the 
dictum and declares that "The highest moral 
duty of a state is to increase its power. The 
state is the sole judge of the morality of its 
oivn action. It is in fact above morality or, 
in other words, whatever is necessary is 
moral." 

The supreme judge in morals is here declared 
to be the state. He thus puts the state in the 
place of God and spells it with a capital. ' ' Ger- 
many stands," says another, ''as the supreme 
arbiter of her own methods." The same of 
[168] 



German Culture 

course would be true of every other nation. 
Thus we have the tribal gods of paganism. 

Of course all this would be denied in theory 
by Germans ; but we are not now dealing with 
theories or professions but with facts and prac- 
tices. When people say, ''The state is the sole 
judge of morality ... is in fact above moral- 
ity," the god of that people is the state and 
not the God of the Bible or the Christian. 

The Kaiser and his entire political, military, 
educational and ecclesiastical oligarchy sub- 
scribe to the doctrine, Suprema lex regis vo- 
luntas, which, in the last analysis, is the prac- 
tical enthronement of man as the supreme 
being. We are not, therefore, surprised to 
hear Bismarck say, ''With us, sir, there is no 
sovereign but the King. It is he alone who 
wills," or his brother speak of "The sacred 
person" of the Kaiser, or the authors of "The 
Truth About Germany" say that they must 
follow wherever the Kaiser leads. He is called 
by the people, "The anointed of the Lord." 
Can we wonder that the Kaiser says, ^^Sic 
volo, sic juheo," or that he assumes the pre- 
rogatives of God, or even that he should say 
in his heart what the greatest of German phi- 
losophers said, "If there were a god how should 
I endure not to be God!" 

The paganized ruling classes in Germany 
still have the Bible, the church, the Christian 
traditions and forms of worship, as an inher- 
itance, but these have become empty shells 
[169] 



"Made in Germany"' 

from which the life has departed. Thus, re- 
ligion, so far from having ''Soul depth" is 
not even skin deep. There are a few genuine 
Christians among them and many more among 
the common people, but they have little influ- 
ence upon a government which has taken the 
place of God. 

The unscrupulousness and brutality of Ger- 
many in the beginning and carrying on of this 
war have revealed as nothing else could have 
done the true character of her religion and 
morality. We can now account for the strange, 
anti-Christian sayings and writings of eminent 
Germans in the past, and for recent utterances 
of religious leaders respecting the war, which 
have shocked the Christian and even the pagan 
world. 

Nietzsche, a brilliant German philosopher, 
boldly declared that the pagan deity *'Oden 
was greater than God." He deplored Ger- 
many's adoption, in the fifth century, of Chris- 
tianity. He is quoted in the Bibleotheca Sacra 
as follows: "Ye have heard how in old times 
it was said. Blessed are the meek, for they 
shall inherit the earth; but I say unto you. 
Blessed are the valiant, for they shall make 
the earth their throne. And ye have heard 
men say. Blessed are the poor in spirit; but 
I say unto you. Blessed are the great in soul 
and free in spirit, for they shall enter into Val- 
halla. And ye have heard men say. Blessed 
are the peace-makers; but I say unto you 
[170] 



German Culture 

Blessed are the war-makers, for they shall be 
called, if not the children of Jahve, the chil- 
dren of Oden, who is greater than Jahve." 

Teaching so repugnant to Christianity would 
have met with crushing opposition in almost 
any Christian country. Not so, however, in 
Germany. While Nietzsche was repudiated by 
many, his teaching took hold of multitudes who 
applauded, approved and have now put into 
practice the spirit and the most vicious fea- 
tures of his teachings. 

There is one bed-rock principle in the Chris- 
tian religion and that is love — love to God and 
love to man. Upon the rock of brotherhood 
human society is building and will finally rest, 
or the world is doomed. What is the German 
teaching upon this subject? Nietzsche an- 
swers, ' ' Brotherhood is for shop-keepers, cows, 
women and Englishmen. " ' * Ah, " it is replied, 
*' Germany repudiates such teachings." Does 
she? Then listen to one of her latest spokes- 
men, Bernhardi: ''The Christian law of love 
applies only to individuals of the same state," 
that is, love stops at the state line, and the 
Christian God of love becomes a local, state 
or tribal god of paganism. "Ah," it is replied, 
''Germany is misrepresented by Bernhardi." 
Is she? Then listen again; Professor Hugo 
Munsterberg writes in a book just published 
as follows, ^'It is the grossest immorality that 
nations should respect the possessions of other 
nations." 

[171] 



"Made in Germany" 

This is the horrible teaching of Nietzsche 
brought up to date. He says, ''You should 
love peace as a means to new war and brief 
peace more than a long one. Do you say it 
is a good cause by which a war is hallowed? 
I say unto you, it is a good war which hal- 
lows every cause. War and courage have 
done greater things than the love of one's 
neighbor. ' ' 

We are told that this must not be taken lit- 
erally but symbolically. Symbolical of what? 
Belgium is the answer. How futile the attempt 
to explain away the wicked principles of these 
German writers, when the German army, be- 
fore the eyes of the whole world, is daily car- 
rying them out in letter and spirit. An able 
writer who was for three years a student in 
Germany assures us, ''that the rank and file 
as well as the aristocracy . . . have become 
ominously full of the doctrine of the survival 
of the fittest and the consequent expediency of 
power, not only in intellectual rivalry but 
in Krupps and high explosives. ' ' 

The Kaiser, in his world-empire ambition, 
comes to the support of this doctrine of seiz- 
ing other people's possessions by deliberately 
setting aside the commandment, "Thou shalt 
not steal." The Earl of Halsburg expresses 
himself in regard to this kind of "soul depth 
in religion" as follows: "I wish to denounce 
any man who thinks himself appointed by God 
to take possession of somebody else's prop- 

[172] 



German Culture 

erty. ... I cannot allow this discussion to 
pass without raising my voice in opposition to 
the notion that because a very big crime is 
committed, it is to be treated as though it was 
a little crime. Any emperor who wants to take 
somebody else's land is a dirty thief, and I 
do not approve of the sort of delicacy which 
would prevent our expressing ourselves plainly 
as to actions of that sort. They are actions 
of which any man should be ashamed ... by 
such means you are to carry your grandeur 
and your glory to the uttermost parts and 
whether the offender be Napoleon who com- 
mitted great crimes — or Sennacherib, he ought 
to be hanged." 

We are beginning to get an insight into the 
*'soul depth in religion," which Professor 
Eucken declares to be one of the '^ holiest pos- 
sessions" for which Germany is fighting. The 
German who says, ''It is the grossest immo- 
rality that nations should respect the posses- 
sions of other nations," is a professor in Har- 
vard University. His assertion is astonishing. 
It is outrageously unchristian, immoral and 
brutal. To set such a man to teach American 
youth is scandalous. All considerations of 
ability, policy or money weigh as nothing in 
the face of a declaration that it is "the gross- 
est immorality" not to ravage, plunder and 
murder an unoffending neighboring people. A 
more socially anarchistic, morally repulsive 
and religiously diabolical sentiment was never 
[173] 



"Made in Germany" 

uttered on American soil, and it is a thousand 
pities that it should emanate from Harvard 
University whose motto is ''Christo et Eccle- 
siae." The sentiment is the echo of principles 
everywhere adopted in Germany and put in 
practice by her armies in their methods of 
warfare. 

We do not claim that a general induction 
can be made from particular cases, unless these 
are clearly representative or have their logical 
outcome in actual conduct or results. 

There is one code of laws universally rec- 
ognized as of divine authority; this is the 
Decalogue. Its commandments are the founda- 
tion of both natural and revealed religion. 
The man who denies this divine authority, 
puts himself outside the pale of all religion. 
The Kaiser, whose constant appeal to God and 
the German Sword is offensive to all true 
Christians, declares as follows: **The Old 
Testament includes a large number of chap- 
ters the nature of which is purely historical 
and human and not a revelation from God. 
/ believe, for example, that the proclamation 
of the law on Mount Sinai must not he consid- 
ered as having been inspired by God." Of 
course whatever is "purely historical and 
human ' ' has no divine authority over any man. 
In this repudiation of the very foundation of 
all religion, we have another example of Ger- 
many's ''soul depth in religion"! 

In ''To the Evangelical Christians Abroad," 
[174] 



German Culture 

thirty-two German ministers say that Aus- 
tria's war upon Servia was ''justifiable ven- 
geance for an ahominahle royal murder." It 
is conceded that the murderer was a subject 
of Austria; that not a shred of evidence has 
been offered to show Servia 's complicity in 
the crime; that Servia offered to submit the 
issue to arbitration and that Austria refused 
and made war upon Servia. What do the 
precepts and spirit of Christianity require in 
such a case? We answer, the trial, conviction 
and punishment of the murderer and the peace- 
ful arbitration of the issue between Austria 
and Servia. What is the answer of the German 
ministers? "Justifiable vengeance" or, unre- 
strained revenge by means of war. No com- 
ment could make plainer the anti- Christian 
attitude of these ministers. Listen again to 
them: ''No scruple holds hack our enemies 
where, in their opinion there is a prospect, 
through our destruction, of seizing for them- 
selves an economic advantage, or an increase 
of power, a fragment of our mother-land, or 
our colonial possessions or our trade." 

We offer three observations respecting these 
charges. 

First. These ministers do not offer a shred 
of evidence in support of a single one of their 
charges and they cannot. 

Second. There is not the semblance of truth 
in their statement. No enemy or anyone else 
has ever suggested the "destruction" of Ger- 
[175] 



"Made in Germany'' 

many; no ''economic advantage" has been 
seized by anyone ; no " fragment of our mother- 
land or colonial possessions" has been sought 
by any nation; no German "trade has been 
seized," but Germans have seized the trade 
of England and other nations right and left. 
These facts are matters of history and do not 
admit of dispute. 

Third. These ministers are learned men. 
They know that it is not merely sophistical, 
but morally indefensible to make serious 
charges of wrong doing, without any pretense 
of furnishing evidence to support them. It is 
a case of hearing false witness. 

As love is the essential principle of Chris- 
tianity, so hatred is its extreme opposite. We 
hold that no man can be a Christian who de- 
liberately hates a fellow man. There is high 
authority for this position. It reads as fol- 
lows: ''If any man say I love God and hateth 
his brother he is a liar and the truth is not in 
him.'' When, therefore, the Berlin pastors 
subscribed to the sentiment of "nothing but 
hatred and contempt" for the English, what 
are we to think of their Christianity? Just 
how does their ''soul depth in religion" mani- 
fest itself toward their neighbors? It will 
hardly be contended that these pastors are not 
representative of German religion. 

In his admirable work on "The Evidence in 
the Case," Mr. James M. Beck quotes as fol- 
lows from Dr. Fuchs, an eminent German, who 

[176] 



German Culture 

demands ' ' Education to hate. Education to the 
estimation of hatred. Organization of hatred. 
Education to the desire for hatred. Let us 
abolish unripe and false shame before brutality 
and fanaticism. We must not hesitate to an- 
nounce : To us is given faith, hope and hatred, 
but hatred is the greatest among them." In 
America this would be the ravings of a mad 
man. How is it regarded in Germany"? Mr. 
Beck says this man is " a representative physi- 
cian, a prominent journalist and a distin- 
guished retired officer of the German army." 
An Oxford professor asks, ''What possessed 
the Germans at Louvain to make a special point 
of burning the University library and the 
colleges'?" The answer is, hatred. What pos- 
sessed a German submarine on March 28, 1915, 
to sink the Falaba, a passenger ship, sending 
one hundred and twenty men, women and chil- 
dren to a watery grave? There is only one 
answer, hatred. 

A German newspaper printed an article by 
Lieutenant Colonel Kaden in which occurs the 
following: ''Send it reverberating like clang- 
ing bells from tower to town throughout the 
country side: Hate! Hate the accursed Eng- 
lish! Hate!" 

"When your soul has become great," says 
Nietzsche, "it will become wanton; in your 
greatness there will be malice I know, and in 
malice the proud heart will meet a weakling. ' ' 
The London Express says, ' ' German hatred of 
[177] 



"Made in Germany'* 

this country is a monomania. If tliey ever have 
a chance the Germans will spread havoc and 
death in Great Britain with a thoroughness 
compared to which their proceedings in Bel- 
gium will appear a mere Sunday-school 
picnic. ' ' 

Frederick the Great is reported to have said 
to his nephew, ''To despoil your neighbors is 
to deprive them of the means of injuring you 
. . . with regard to war, it is a business in 
which the slightest scruple spoils the whole 
matter ... be sure not only of preserving 
your kingdom but of enlarging it. ' ' 

One hundred and fifty years have passed 
since these barbarous sentiments were uttered. 
During this time the world has made great 
progress in civilization, especially in the splen- 
did development of altruism and philanthropy ; 
hence it is that Christendom is shocked at Ger- 
many's adoption of these inhuman and savage 
principles. 

Hundreds of similar examples can be given, 
showing that hatred is an accepted doctrine in 
Germany, and the last nine months show that 
it is a working principle in the conduct of this 
war. Lissauer's ''Chant of Hate" is Ger- 
many's national hymn and everywhere sung 
with religious fervor. A cartoon represents 
leading men of Germany grinding out ' ' Chants 
of Hate" while you wait, showing the great 
popularity of the poem. 

Since hatred is the extreme opposite of love 
[178] 



German Culture 

and brotherhood enjoined by religion, the claim 
that Germany is distinguished above other 
nations by ''soul depth in religion" is nothing 
less than grotesque. 

This war has led Americans to examine the 
history and character of German institutions 
as never before. We could not understand why 
Germany began this war. The crime of delib- 
erately provoking a war is so monstrous that 
we were at a loss to account for Germany's 
action. It seemed to be a war without a cause. 
The secret is now disclosed. There was no 
religion or morality to restrain the rampant 
militarism. Instead of ''soul depth in religion" 
we find a religion so shallow that it cannot 
furnish even a veneering for the basest pas- 
sions — the lust of "blood and iron." 

The doctrine that might makes right is a 
figment in America, but a reality in Germany. 
In the new ethics a war of conquest is th^ 
wickedest thing conceivable in America, while 
in Germany it is a virtue. The rise and prog- 
ress of these vicious principles of militarism 
have blighted the Christian faith in Ger- 
many and religion has lost its hold upon the 
people. 

Mr. Coit, a competent judge and a warm 
friend of German Kultur, says "Germans do 
not pretend to be holy, followers of Christ. It 
is rather the spirit of Napoleon that rules Ger- 
many. To reduce a treaty to 'A scrap of 
paper' is quite consistent with German cul- 
[179] 



''Made in Germany'* 

ture," and he might have added with German 
"soul depth in religion"! 

The "scrap of paper" incident created a 
profound sensation throughout the world. 
Why? It would hardly have found its way 
into the newspapers so far as its political, 
diplomatic, or military significance was con- 
cerned. It was because it was a direct and 
deadly assault upon the citadel of morality and 
religion. Had the assault prevailed, had this 
citadel fallen, all would have been lost, all faith 
and justice, all law, religion and morals would 
have been over run, devastated and ruined by 
the arch enemy of the race. Had men been 
silent and accepted that principle, the world 
that has been slowly climbing up the sublime 
heights of "peace on earth, good will to men" 
would have relapsed into chaos and despair. 
In that little "scrap of paper" the German 
Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg, represented 
the Kaiser and the under rulers of Germany. 
It will stand as the symbol of religious and 
moral decay of their empire. It led directly to 
the attempt to bribe England, so epigrammat- 
ically set forth by Mr. G. K. Chesterton, ' ' Ger- 
many came to England and said if you will 
break your promise in the hope of helping me 
to break my promise, I will reward you with 
another of my celebrated promises, or I am 
going to lie. If you will lie too, we can both 
be trusted to tell the truth. ' ' 

Is it any wonder that we Americans cannot 
[180] 



German Culture 

comprehend what the Kaiser means in saying, 
''To possess hultur 'means to have the deepest 
conscientiousness and the highest morality. 
My Germans possess that." Was it this *' con- 
scientiousness" and "morality" that inspired 
this holy charge to his soldiers, ''When you 
encounter the enemy ... no quarter shall be 
given, no prisoners shall be taken"? Was it 
''soul depth in religion" that led him to say 
to Mohammedan Turkey, "Proclaim a holy 
war against my religion and the religion of 
my people"? By this reductio ad ahsurdum 
we can now appreciate Germany's "soul depth 
in religion." 

The truth is the vital spark of Christianity 
has about disappeared in Germany. Theology 
has been divorced from religion and taken the 
highest seat in the synagogue. This process 
has been going on for half a century. True 
religion, both personal and institutional, must 
suffer an eclipse when theologians and schools 
forsake it by substituting a cold, barren 
intellectualism. 

The fathers of philosophy, science and music 
are not the fathers of religion. They are so 
far from possessing "soul depth in religion" 
that they are, for the most part, strangers to 
the soul of religion or the religion of the soul. 
Religion is a matter of the heart and emotions 
and cannot be expressed in terms of the intel- 
lect. The attempt to do this is fatal. Faith 
does not "stand in the wisdom of man" but 
[181] 



"^Made in Germany'^ 

in "the power of God." Whatever that power 
is, it is not the power of man. This is de- 
nied by German rationalists falsely called 
theologians. 

Dr. W. F. Griffith Thomas, in the Bibliotheca 
Sacra for January, 1915, says, "It is almost 
incredible to read that, when Harnack endeav- 
ored to express his religious convictions in his 
book, 'The Essence of Christianity,' a well- 
known theologian, Julicher, condemned it as 
not the proper work for a professor. Perhaps 
greatest of all is the fact that Christ as ex- 
pressing God has been woefully ignored and 
neglected in Germany. It is true that the Kai- 
ser has referred to God in various ways almost 
ad nauseam, and the motto on the soldier's 
belt is 'God with us'; but no one can doubt 
that the conception of God is Deistic rather 
than that of the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." It is such a conception as 
admits of principles subversive of Christianity, 
such as '^War is a good thing." ''The weak 
have no right to live." "Might makes right." 
"It is the grossest immorality . . . to respect 
the possessions of other nations." "Hatred is 
greater than love." It is a conception that 
permits in war every crime of the Decalogue 
and tramples upon the Sermon on the Mount, 
and is as far removed from Christianity as 
Gehenna is from Paradise. 

The higher criticism in Germany has cut 
away all Biblical moorings and set theologians 
[182] 



German Culture 

adrift on the ocean of speculation and left the 
people without God and without hope in the 
world. Wellhausen said, ''If my views prevail 
the common people cannot retain the Bihle." 
"With theologians apostatized, the Bible dis- 
carded, Christ rejected, churches neglected and 
religion paganized, Germany had to worship 
something and so she set up the Moloch of 
Militarism and is now immolating hetacombs 
of human victims to her idol. 

Educational Culture 

Another characteristic of German culture in 
that ''true structure of human existence" 
which, according to Professor Eucken has been 
''entrusted to Germany," is ''The creation of 
independent personality in our educational 
methods." 

Education is a magic word in the United 
States. The two pillars of our republic are 
religion and education. The republic is free 
and enduring just in proportion as the people 
are religious and intelligent. Some are indif- 
ferent respecting scientific culture and some 
respecting religious culture, but every Ameri- 
can, if he is half a man is loyal to the cause 
of education. 

The merits of the German educational sys- 
tem may be at once conceded. Among the 
things it lacks, the most important is this 
"independent personality" which is claimed 
[183] 



''Made in Germany'^ 

by Professor Eucken as one of its principal 
characteristics. 

The German army is not inaptly called a 
machine. Precisely the same is true of educa- 
tion. So far from developing 'independent 
personality" either in the army or in educa- 
tion, the direct opposite is the truth. It is the 
close formation, the whole as a unit, in either 
case, that describes the method. In this method 
the personality of the individual is suppressed 
in favor of the movement in masses. It is the 
machine rather than the mechanic that does 
the work and carries off the honors. 

On the other hand educational methods in 
the United States develop personality. With 
us it is the mechanic rather than the machine, 
the man behind the gun rather than the gun, 
the individual rather than the school that 
engages chief interest. 

The relation of the state to the people will 
determine the character and methods in edu- 
cation. Where the people exist for the state, 
education Avill exist for the state, and the less 
'independent personality" the better; where 
the state exists for the people, education exists 
for the people and the more ''personality" the 
better. 

Method, drill, thoroughness and mechanical 
efficiency in education have reached high-water 
mark in Germany, but in originality, acuteness, 
comprehension, personality and independence 
Germany is far behind England and the United 
[184] 



German Culture 

States. Above all, in the amenities of life, 
politeness, kindness, modesty, gratitude, gen- 
tleness, neighborly love and refinement, quali- 
ties above all others that must distingniish any 
educational culture worthy the name, are in- 
conspicuous in Germany. 

We have seen in a former chapter that Ger- 
man universities are under state control. The 
professors are state officers, appointed, paid 
and disciplined by the state. Since the state 
and militarism are so nearly synonymous, no 
wrong impression will be conveyed in saying 
that the universities and, therefore, all educa- 
tion is under military control. We say all 
education, because education in Germany is 
from the top downward. In the United States, 
it is from the bottom upward. Here the people 
control the common school, the common school 
controls the university, and the university 
controls the government. The whole process 
is reversed in Germany, where the government 
controls the university, the university the com- 
mon school and the schools the people. 

If, therefore, the German government would 
keep up the war spirit of the people against 
Russia, it has only to communicate its will to 
the universities and, as Bismarck says, it is 
their business to ask no questions, but to devise 
means of carrying out the will of the Kaiser 
and they will fail to do this at their peril. 
**The complaisant professor is decorated, the 
contumacious is cashiered." 
[185] 



"Made in Germany" 

We can now understand why the universities 
invented the bogey of the ''Slav menace," 
which has kept the people up to the boiling 
point of war against Russia. Professor Simon 
N. Patten says, ''The cry of 'Germany versus 
Slav' originated in the university, and the pro- 
fessor rules Germany; his idealism has gone 
to the schools and is firmly implanted in every 
boy's heart." This "Slav menace," says a 
writer, was thus "an invention to cover the 
purpose of conquest." 

The story of the origin and object of the 
"Slav menace," which has no reality in fact 
but is a mere phantom, illustrates the attitude 
of the German professors in this war. They 
are its most ardent apologists and supporters. 
They have sent an appeal to foreign univer- 
sities to support the German cause on the 
ground of culture. They say, "These univer- 
sities know what German culture means to the 
world. So we trust they will stand by Ger- 
many." Never were the genius and character 
of American universities more thoroughly mis- 
conceived, than by imagining that they would 
approve or condone the German war — the most 
perfidious and infamous crime in modern times 
— for the sake of a culture that has made war 
its chief element, and should be shunned as we 
would shun the plague of leprosy. It reminds 
us of the notorious Ruloff, convicted of murder 
and sentenced to death in Ohio. A college 
president visited him in prison. Ruloff con- 
[186] 



German Culture 

fessed that he had murdered thirteen persons. 
He was a linguist and could speak thirteen 
languages, which happened to be one language 
for each murder. He gravely argued that his 
linguistic culture was a *' possession" that the 
world should not lose, that it entitled him to 
life, and he besought his visitor to intercede 
for him on this ground. Like these German 
professors, he virtually said, "You know what 
linguistic culture means to the world, so I trust 
you will stand by me ! ' ' 

The Intellectuals of Germany recently as- 
serted that * ' German Intellectuals and German 
soldiers form but one soul, and Goethe, and 
Kant and Beethoven are our fathers." Soul 
in Germany means the pagan soul ; in America 
it means the Christian soul. This identifica- 
tion of culture with war is incomprehensible to 
Americans. They believe that war is a terrible 
evil, destructive, demoralizing and ruinous to 
all that culture means. 

Where the chief divinity of a nation is Mars, 
educational culture will naturally honor his 
heroes. This explains the recently reported 
act of a German university in conferring the 
degree of Doctor of Divinity upon General 
von Hindenberg after a great slaughter of 
Eussians ! 

The process of militarizing education in Ger- 
many has been a gradual one. It began soon 
after the easy triumph over France in 1871. 
Flushed with victory and the enormous indem- 
[187] 



"Made in Germany'' 

nity of a billion dollars exacted from France, 
Germany began to regard war as the one ob- 
ject of glorification. A national altar was 
erected to Brute Force, and, forsaking the 
Christian God of peace and love, the people, 
led by the Kaiser and the universities, bowed 
down and worshipped at this shrine. There 
were misgivings and protests by wise and good 
men, but without avail. Theodor Mommsen 
spoke as follows to his constituents at Halle : — 
''Have a care, gentlemen, lest in this state 
which has been at once a power in arms and 
a power in intelligence, the intelligence should 
vanish and nothing but the pure military state 
should remain." 

From that day to the present time German 
culture has declined. Her great philosophers 
and poets belong to a pre-militaristic age. In 
philosophy, art, science, music and belles- 
lettres, it is said Germany has fallen to the 
third if not the fourth place among the nations. 
For a hundred years or more there has not 
been a single writer of novels in Germany who 
equals in literary excellence a group of a dozen 
English writers. 

A far more serious matter in a state that 
has enthroned militarism as its idol, is the 
decay of moral culture. We do not share the 
popular view as to the military virtues, so 
called. The man who will die for the right is 
a brave man. The man who will die for the 
sake of a fight is a brute. His valor is the 
[188] 



German Culture 

valor of the beast. In every war there is more 
of this kind of valor than we like to admit. 
Militarism in time of peace nourishes the beast 
in human nature. We are not thinking so much 
of its disgusting superciliousness and hoggish- 
ness, which are notorious on the streets of Ber- 
lin, as of the vices that flourish and are con- 
doned, but which sap the virility of the nation. 
No amount of scientific or other culture can 
counteract their fatal effects. Commenting on , 
this state a writer says, '^ Brutal wickedness ; 
and misery increased a thousand fold, cause us 
to repeat Eousseau's prayer, 'Almighty God, 
deliver us from the sciences and the pernicious 
arts of our father! Grant us ignorance, inno- ■ 
cence, and poverty once more as the only things 
which can bring happiness and which are of . 
value in thine eyes.' " / 

The later doctrine of the Superman has been 
disastrous to German morals. Goethe's ''Su- 
perman" was one who rose "spiritually and 
intellectually above the foibles of humanity," 
and was thus a beautiful conception. 

"Unless above himself, 
Man can erect himself, 
How mean a thing is man!" 

Nietzsche, however, caught up Goethe's Su- 
perman and made it stand for a big "bully 
trampling down whatever is not strong enough 
to resist. ' ' In other words, he made it a slogan 
of militarism. His Superman meant beyond 
[189] 



"Made in Germany'* 

good and evil, or rather good and evil were no 
longer to be considered. It transcended moral- 
ity. Force, power, were the only things worth 
while, and death to the weak. Nietzsche said, 
'* Weakness is the political sin against the Holy 
Ghost," although he flouted all religion. 

If the Superman is untouched by good and 
evil, he is to be classed with the lower animals 
since they also are untouched by good and evil. 
This shows us not a Superman but a Suhman, 
and to this species Nietzsche and all his ilk 
belong. 

The brilliant Boston correspondent of the 
Springfield Republican (Mass.) says, ''Nietz- 
sche undertook to set aside the Ten Hebrew 
Commandments in favor of his theoretical ab- 
straction, the Superman . . . but his imagin- 
ary Nietzschean Superman has turned out, in 
practice, to be some scandalous Csesar, Tartar, 
Turk, or Roman pope, who filled out the 
schemes devised for him by the poet: — 

" 'Strength should be lord of imbecility. 

And the rude son should strike his father dead. 

Then everything includes itself in power, 

Power into Will, Will into Appetite, 

And Appetite, a universal wolf, 

So doubly seconded with will and power, 

Must make, perforce, a universal prey, 

And last, eat up himself.' " 

The mischief wrought in Germany by the 
influence of Nietzsche and his followers is in- 
calculable. To them can be traced the diabol- 

[190] 



German Culture 

ical German doctrine, **My country right or 
wrong." His teachings have poisoned the 
atmosphere of the throne, the military, the 
university, the school and the common people 
with the deadly fumes of militarism until the 
nation now lies convulsed in the throes of war. 

We have said that German education was 
from the top downward. This insures a unity 
of system, method, spirit and result possible 
only to a machine controlled by a master me- 
chanic — the autocratic hand, but it is fatal to 
''independent personality in education." 

By this system, any doctrine, idea, belief or 
policy at the top can be readily transmitted 
to the bottom with an efficiency unexcelled by 
a Corliss engine. By this system, arbitrarily 
worked from the top, the same efficiency can 
be secured in industrial operations. The Ger- 
mans, says another, "have been dragooned into 
an efficiency by an autocracy for its own selfish 
ends." Liberty must be sacrificed for this 
kind of efficiency. ''The efficiency of the Ger- 
man machine, brought into light through the 
present war, has been accomplished only 
through the autocracy of the state, as autoc- 
racy runs hand in hand with purely technical 
efficiency. The price that must be paid for 
democracy is a certain amount of technical 
inefficiency for the benefit of man, as man, and 
not as a machine. The price is not too high, 
because democracy develops the independence, 
the character and the expansion of the iiidi- 
[191] 



"Made in Germany" 

vidual life." Not for a moment would we 
exchange the liberty, initiation, character and 
enterprise of American democracy for the 
servile efficiency of German autocracy. 

This system accounts also for the boasted 
unity of the common people in Germany in 
support of this iniquitous war; for the unity 
of the universities in defence of it; for the 
unity of the 25,000 German soldiers killed and 
wounded at Liege, in believing that they were 
fighting Frenchmen on their way to Germany, 
although there was not a French soldier in 
Belgium at the time. It accounts also for the 
unity of the children in the German schools 
in believing the great lies that are taught them ; 
for example, that war is divine; that might 
makes right; that militarism is the corner 
stone of the state; that other nations are hent 
on the destruction of Germany; that the Kai- 
ser is the divine head of all nations; that hatred 
is virtue; that the ivar is a defensive war, and 
that Germany has a right to force her culture 
on the world by the bayonet. 

For more than a generation the children have 
had these lies drilled into them in the schools 
and have grown up with them. Worse than 
all, the paganism of the universities, in the 
rejection of the Christian God, the Bible, the 
Christ, and personal religion, has been taught 
in the schools and resulted in the most irre- 
ligious and godless nation in Christendom. 

Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas gives us a sample 
[192] 



German Culture 

of the teachings in all the schools throughout 
Germany. The teacher said to his pupils, 
"There are also some people who think that 
every thing good comes from above; that is 
not true. . . . You must not believe that Jesus 
really stilled the storm on the sea. He never 
did that." A clergyman present highly com- 
mended the teacher, and of twenty other teach- 
ers present only one stood up for Christ. We 
could multiply examples of like teaching, but 
ex uno disce omnes. 

There is no test of the true educational and 
ethical culture of a people at the present time 
more significant than its missionary work. A 
letter from the secretary of the oldest mission- 
ary society in this country, after speaking 
highly of German missions in India and the 
numerous missions of German Lutheranism, 
makes this significant statement: — ''The Ger- 
mans use only about two million dollars a year, 
that is, all of the German Missionary Societies 
together in the prosecution of their work all 
over the world, while Great Britain uses more 
than ten million dollars a year and the United 
States twelve million more." 

"While missionary activity is primarily re- 
ligious, its schools, colleges and hospitals, as 
well as its churches, are doing a highly educa- 
tional work. We use the word education in 
this chapter in its broadest sense, including 
all cultural and intellectual activities. 

In one respect ''independent personality in 
[193] 



''Made in Germany'* 

education" may be conceded to Germany. We 
refer to excursions in the realms of philosophy. 
There is much useless learning in all countries 
but Germany leads in this respect. Mr. 
Charles W. Super calls attention in the Bibli- 
otheca Sacra to two recent Greek histories by 
Busolt and Beloch, written, he says, with char- 
acteristic German thoroughness. One of them 
extending only to the time of Alexander fills 
about twenty-five hundred pages; the other 
covers more ground and is more readable, but 
there is little of value in them. Of the same 
character, he says, is Macon's Heroditus. 
** After reading all the author has to say, we 
find that it is almost exclusively subjective 
and of no real value." Germany abounds in 
publications of this character, which add noth- 
ing to the sum of human knowledge. 

Philosophy is no less important than science 
to the progress and happiness of the race. Sci- 
ence deals with concrete, proximate facts; 
philosophy with abstract, ultimate facts. As 
with science so in philosophy, the moment one 
departs from facts ascertained by exact ob- 
servation and correct reasoning, that moment 
he embarks upon a sea of speculation and 
without rudder, anchor or compass, is driven 
hither and thither by every wind that blows. 
Metaphysics, said J. S. Mill, is a fertile field 
of delusion propagated by language. 

In no department of education is there such 
an unquenchable thirst as in matters of reli- 
[194] 



German Culture 

gion. Anything or anybody that claims to 
possess a l?:ey to unlock its mysteries, or an 
idea to solve its problems, can command the 
attention of the world. Germany, the land of 
Luther and Melancthon, was supposed to be 
the promised land flowing with the milk and 
honey of religious truth. Thither thousands 
of American theological students have gone to 
complete their equipment for the Gospel min- 
istry. In some respects they may have been 
benefitted. In many respects they have been 
injured. In no respect have they been endued 
with more power in prayer, more humility, 
spirituality or converting grace, things with- 
out which a church is only an sesthetical, intel- 
lectual and Pharisaical club. 

The ''independent personality" of which 
Germany boasts has indeed characterized the 
speculations of her theologians. Nowhere in 
Christendom has independence of all law, au- 
thority and truth been so destructive of the 
Bible. Nowhere has the repudiation of the 
supernatural and divine been so thorough. 
Nowhere has Christ been so thoroughly re- 
jected. Nowhere have love, humility, prayer, 
forgiveness and all the Christian graces been 
so discredited and crushed by ''independent 
personality" and "scientific thoroughness." 

No nation has been so fertilized and seeded 
down with arrogance, infidelity, immorality, 
hatred and militarism as Germany; and hav- 
ing thus sown the wind, she is bound to reap 
[195] 



''Made in Germany" 

a whirlwind of suffering, lamentation and woe. 
We are told that Americans do not understand 
Germany because they ' ' cannot think like Ger- 
many. ' ' The late Charles Francis Adams, after 
reading Nietzsche and other German writers, 
says, '*I can only say that if what I find in 
these sources is the capacity to think German- 
ically, I would rather cease thinking at all. It 
is the absolute negation of everything which 
has in the past tended to elevate mankind, 
and the installation in place thereof of a sys- 
tem of thorough dishonesty, emphasized by 
brutal stupidity. There is a low cunning about 
it too, which is to me in the last degree 
repulsive." 

The people of other nations are less annoyed 
at the philosophical vagaries of the Germans 
than at their assumption of superiority. Sev- 
eral years ago Mr. Herman Ridder, an able 
German editor in the United States, wrote as 
follows: ''If Germany to-day in general is 
unbeloved and is able so easily to become sus- 
pected, the first and principal reason for this 
is the provocative activity of the pan-Germans, 
their vainglory and their mania for treating 
other powers with mortifying insolence." 

This German trait is not a recent or sudden 
development. It has been going on for many 
years. The Kaiser is especially responsible 
for it. 

His exaltation of himself could not be real- 
ized without the exaltation of his subjects. 
[196] 



German Culture 

Constantly falling from his lips are the phrases, 
*'My unrivaled Grandfather"; ^'My glorious 
house of Hohenzollern"; ''The Spirit of God 
has descended upon me." The royal members 
of his family are exalted far above all other 
mortals. He has assured the people that they 
are superior in kultur, bravery and power, to 
all other people and that God has decreed that 
Germany should force her kultur, at the point 
of the bayonet, upon all other nations. ^^The 
foreigner/' he says, ''has learned the conse- 
quences of offending the German Emperor and 
his soldiers." 

This balderdash has had an immense effect 
upon the people. We know how easy it is to 
spoil a child by telling him he is superior to 
other children and even to his parents and that 
others should submit to his will. The child 
is inflated with self-importance and insolence. 
Precisely similar has been the effect of the 
Kaiser's fulsome praise of the people. They 
have taken him seriously until the average 
German is a bundle of conceit and arrogance. 
An American and German at the beginning of 
the war chanced to be passing the Capitol build- 
ings in Washington. The German innocently 
remarked that some day the German Emperor 
would own these buildings and control them. 

The same assumption of superiority has man- 
ifested itself in German universities. Mr. 
Charles W. Super quotes Professor Kaster as 
saying, respecting students from other prov- 
[197] 



"Made in Germany" 

inces and foreign lands, *'We take the donkey's 
money and send him home." In his colossal 
conceit he could not realize that the pabulum 
he dispensed was more suitable for a donkey's 
consumption than for high minded young men 
in pursuit of knowledge. The ''money," how- 
ever, has had a diplomatic effect upon the pro- 
fessor in his concealing his insolence. 

One thing has already resulted from this 
war, namely, the glamour that has heretofore 
enveloped German universities is dissolved. 
The disillusionment has come. When at the 
beginning of the war German professors came 
out boldly as the ardent champions of mili- 
tarism, war for conquest and the spread of Ger- 
man kultur, they challenged the world to 
examine the reserve of true scholarship behind 
the university currency in general circulation, 
and people found the latter so inflated that its 
slump in value is universal and its redemption 
doubtful. 

The ideals of the universities, their philoso- 
phies, researches, kultur and morals, their 
teachings, spirit and purpose, however dis- 
guised, had all fostered the wicked and detest- 
able purpose of aggressive war. 

This assumption of superiority easily grows 
out of the spirit of militarism and helps to 
account for the hatred of Germans toward their 
enemies. But how shall we explain this hatred 
on the part of learned men, professors with 
chastened experience and disciplined minds? 

[198] 



German Culture 

Hatred of one's fellow men is one of the basest 
passions. What could lead an eminent pro- 
fessor of Heidelberg to declare that German 
culture would not be satisfied until it had de- 
stroyed the tombs of Shakespeare and Newton 
as a punishment upon perfidious London I In- 
credible as it may appear, there is no doubt 
that these professors, were it possible, would 
march in a body to Stratford-on-Avon and 
burn the home of Shakespeare, dig up his bones 
and throw them into the Avon, and raze to the 
ground the church in which he worshipped. 

This is Germany and this is German kultur 
in German universities in the twentieth 
century ! 

Science and philosophy may be a source of 
weakness as well as power. The defeat of Ger- 
many will be the defeat of her universities. It 
will be a signal defeat of the maxim, knowledge 
is power. It will show once again that knowl- 
edge without wisdom is in the long run weak- 
ness and destruction. 

"Knowledge is proud that it learned so much. 
Wisdom is humble that it knows no more." 

There is the very highest authority for the 
doctrine that the beginning of wisdom is not 
the university but the fear of God who, how- 
ever, has been for a generation virtually ban- 
ished from German universities. 

It would seem to be a solecism to speak of 
the ignorance of learned men; this war, how- 
[199] 



"'Made in Germany'' 

ever, has emphasized the fact. This is an age 
of specialization in knowledge. Specialization 
has serious disadvantages. It dwarfs the mind 
by sharpening some faculties at the expense of 
others. ''It is a matter for profound regret," 
writes Mr. Super, ''that the old-time scholar- 
ship has become almost a thing of the past," 
and he quotes a pupil of the late Professor 
Shaler as saying, "I do not believe there is 
an American now living under sixty years of 
age whose knowledge is as extensive and accu- 
rate as his was." 

While the saying that we should know every- 
thing about something and something about 
everything may not be taken literally, scholars 
are certainly bound to know the great outstand- 
ing facts connected with public events of su- 
preme importance. 

Well-educated Germans believe that three 
years ago the increase of their army was 
forced by an increase of the French army, 
whereas it is a plain historical fact that the 
exact opposite is the truth, viz. : G-ermany first 
enlarged her army by more than half a million 
soldiers, and France, to meet the danger, then 
increased her army. 

Ninety-three of the best educated men in 
Germany address a letter to all nations in 
which they say, "It is not true that Germany 
. . . caused the war . . . Germany did her ut- 
most to prevent it." No historical fact is more 
solidly established than that this war was 
1 200 ] 



German Culture 

planned in Germany, prepared in Germany and 
"Made in Germany." If these gentlemen are 
sincere in their statements they are profoundly 
ignorant of the facts. They say again, ''It is 
not true that we trespassed in neutral Bel- 
gium," and again, ''It is not true that the life 
and property of a single Belgium citizen was 
injured by our soldiers without the bitterest 
self-defence having made it necessary," and 
again, "It is not true that our warfare pays 
no respect to international laws," and this in 
the face of their submarine piracy! We could 
fill pages with similar statements flatly denying 
facts patent, notorious and absolutely impossi- 
ble of contradiction. How then shall we ac- 
count for this? The only charitable answer is 
the ignorance of these learned men. 

If the mind or eye is fixed long and intently 
on one little object, it became more oblivious 
of larger objects. Such narrowness of thought 
and vision may help to explain the ignorance 
of German professors respecting matters of 
international importance. Dr. Hans Delbruck, 
successor of Treitsche, once said that Germany 
must expand at the expense of England, France 
and Russia, by making war upon them. Over 
and over this sentiment is reiterated by Ger- 
man professors. Students of history are puz- 
zled at the profound ignorance thus displayed 
in respect to the acquisition of territory. 

These professors do not understand the 
methods by which these nations have won the 
[201] 



"Made in Germany" 

possessions for wMch they are so bitterly en- 
vied in Germany. It was not by "everlast- 
ingly talking about it, by villifying their rivals, 
by continually brandishing the sword and ele- 
vating into a system the right of the mailed fist. 
Their empires have grown through the pursuit 
of immediate and limited aims. They have 
sought here an outlet to the sea, there a trading 
station, or the reduction to peace of marauding 
neighbors on the frontiers. German profes- 
sional intelligence has taken so false a measure 
of men and things as to adopt the very course 
most certain to defeat its aims." 

It is no exaggeration to say that learned Ger- 
man professors on both sides of the Atlantic 
have put forth arguments so unreasonable, 
illogical and puerile, as to invite universal 
derision. For example, here is an argument to 
show that Germany is fighting a defensive war : 
*'As Bismarck said the German army, since it 
is an army of the folk itself, is not a weapon 
for frivolous aggression. Since the German 
army, when it is summoned to war, represents 
the whole German people, and since the whole 
German people is peaceably disposed, it fol- 
lows that the army can only be a defensive 
organization. ' ' Of course this reasoning would 
prove that every nation beginning a war is on 
the defensive. It requires no knowledge of 
logic to detect the fallacy of such reasoning. 
It is really an affront to common sense. There 
is no fool like an educated fool. Nothing has 
[ 202 ] 



German Culture 

done more harm to the German cause than 
this twisting of truth, perversion of facts 
and sophistical, silly arguments of German 
professors. 

The more intelligent among the common peo- 
ple are pretty much in the same category, with 
this difference, they make mere assertions with- 
out explanation or the slightest evidence in 
support of them. With them assertion is con- 
clusive. Americans receive letters from all 
parts of Germany justifying her course. They 
are all alike, bear the same trade mark and the 
same stamp and may all be entitled, ''What 
all Germans believe." Under this caption the 
Springfield Republican (Massachusetts) dis- 
cusses this remarkable phenomenon of uni- 
formity, and accurately analyzes its psychol- 
ogy. It says, "The typical letter runs some- 
thing as follows: — (1) America has read only 
lies; (2) This is a defensive war; (3) All 
Germany is united in supporting the Kaiser; 
(4) Austria had to punish Servia; (5) Rus- 
sia began the war; (6) England instigated it; 
(7) Every German knows that the other na- 
tions had long been plotting to destroy Ger- 
many and German kultur; (8) Belgium was 
their secret ally; (9) Atrocities have been per- 
petrated on Germans whose conduct has been 
exemplary; (10) German victories have been 
kept from the world! What these letters con- 
spicuously lack is facts; in place of them we 
have dogmatic assertions." 

[203] 



"Made in Germany'' 

How is this uniformity of statement to be 
accounted for ? Their authors, of course, have 
no first hand knowledge in these matters. How, 
for example, could they know that other na- 
tions were plotting to destroy Germany, espe- 
cially when no such plotting was ever thought 
off ''The very uniformity and confidence of 
the tone," says the Eepublican, ''with which 
the assertion is made indicates that it has been 
taught dogmatically, that the Germans have 
accepted it obediently as a first principle, like 
the superiority of German culture to all other 
culture. ' ' 

Let us suppose that these statements were 
evolved by the Kaiser and his general staff, 
hung upon the walls of the war office, printed 
upon decorated cards, sent to all local officials 
of the realm for general distribution, together 
with the instructions that the people assemble 
daily and repeat in concert these ten great, 
crucial declarations respecting the war, and 
any one who shall venture to demand facts for 
the support of any one of them shall be deemed 
guilty of unpatriotic conduct. 

The results reached by the educational ma- 
chine in Germany are the same as if the suppo- 
sition were true. In no other country could 
such profound ignorance be so scientifically 
and thoroughly imposed upon the people. In 
no other country could such blind, absolute 
obedience as to what all the people should 
believe and speak be secured. In no other 
I 204 ] 



German Culture 

country in the world could the rulers propa- 
gate such glaring falsehoods by means of let- 
ters from the people written to foreigners all 
making the same assertions, in the same lan- 
guage and with the same assurance of their 
truth. ''Empty of facts as these naive and 
impassioned letters are," says the Republican, 
''they in themselves, in their pathetic uniform- 
ity and their unquestioning patriotism, are a 
fact and an impressive fact. . . . What every 
German knows, turns out to be simply that he 
is ready to march when the word comes from 
above. ' ' 

We are assured that the Germans are just 
as sincere and faithful to their convictions as 
the Allies. When evil doers are sincere and 
faithful in the perpetration of crime, the evil 
is intensified. Never were men more sincere 
or true to their convictions than when the Ger- 
mans, in violation of solemn treaties, invaded 
Belgium and "hacked their way through" the 
burning buildings and dead bodies of innocent 
men, women and children. 

With what sincerity and fidelity to convic- 
tions do German submarines torpedo peaceable 
merchant ships, without notice sending them 
to the bottom with their unoffending passen- 
gers ! When Professor Hugo Munsterberg pub- 
lishes to the world that, "To say that nations 
ought to respect the possessions of other na- 
tions is the grossest immorality," we credit 
him with sincerity and fidelity to his convic- 
[205] 



"Made in Germany'' 

tions. That this professor, as a representative 
Oerman, can commit piracy, theft, massacre, 
perfidy and falsehood with sincerity and fidel- 
ity to conviction we must concede. We stand, 
however, in mortal terror of the German brand 
of sincerity and fidelity to conviction. Until 
these qualities are civilized we want nothing 
to do with them. 

Among the many reasons assigned by Ger- 
man apologists for the war are (1) Conquest; 
(2) Spread of German culture; (3) A Place 
in the Sun; (4) Jealousy toward Germany; 
(5) The Slav Menace; (6) Control of the 
Balkans; (7) Commercial Supremacy; (8) 
Military Efficiency; (9) Spontaneous . Com- 
bustion; (10) War of Protoplasms. 

The Sarjevo assassination is no longer re- 
garded as the cause or hardly the occasion for 
the war. Austria's ultimatum to Servia was 
only a pretext for beginning a war fully deter- 
mined upon and prepared for. 

There is one and only one efficient and suf- 
ficient cause of this war. It is as old as war 
itself. It has never failed to produce war and 
has caused nearly all the wars of history. 
The other alleged causes for this war are cal- 
culated to throw dust in the eyes of the peo- 
ple and divert public attention from the real 
cause. 

Let us first eliminate these fictitious causes, 
reversing the order of statement and begin- 
ning with the last. 

[206] 



German Culture 

(10) The war of Protoplasms. Dr. Eobert 
Tuttle Morris in an address on ''Warfare as 
Natural History," described man as a group 
of protoplasmic cells that were in constant 
warfare. The war was between two strong 
types of varietal hybrids, each trying to get 
control of the other. In this struggle, he says, 
a ''strong, haughty, nouveau-riche protoplasm 
is in conflict with an equally strong, old pa- 
trician protoplasm." Dr. Morris, says the 
New York Times, diagnosed the European 
conflict as a "free-for-all show-down between 
Mr. Darwin of England and Mr. Treitschke 
of Germany." It is thus a battle of proto- 
plasms. 

Darwin, however, had another theory beside 
that of the survival of the fittest ; this was the 
"mutual dependence of protoplasms." This 
means a recognition by the fighting protoplas- 
mic cells of each other's rights, and an 
arrangement brought about by the Hague con- 
gress, whereby the warring protoplasms will 
submit to an "international mind." Dr. Mor- 
ris believes this theory will prevail. The Ger- 
man Treitschke flouts this idea, declares war 
to be a biological necessity and demands that 
German protoplasm should ruthlessly crush 
all other national protoplasms. 

If as Dr. Morris asserts, he as a man is a 

group of fighting protoplasmic cells, we will let 

some other group tackle him and his theory. 

Meanwhile we shall continue to regard this war 

[207] 



"Made in Germany'* 

as caused by and carried on by men who are 
conscious, intelligent and responsible beings. 

(9) *' Spontaneous Combustion" is said to 
have caused the war. This is produced by 
heat caused by chemical action within the sub- 
stance itself. No outside agency is responsi- 
ble. Nobody is to blame. In the moral world 
it is an effect without a cause and covers a 
multitude of sins. This view in various forms 
is a favorite one with those who are advocating 
the German cause under the guise of neutrality. 

(8) ''Military Efficiency" as the cause of the 
war is considered in a former chapter. It is 
the doctrine put forward by Dr. Jordan, and, 
like ''Spontaneous combustion," relieves all 
nations and all individuals from any responsi- 
bility for beginning the war. Since it is repu- 
diated by all the belligerent nations we may 
dismiss it at once. 

(7) "Commercial Supremacy" is often de- 
clared to be the cause of the war. None will 
deny that commercial interests play an impor- 
tant part in modern wars. In no respect is 
a nation so sensitive as in matters of trade 
and commerce. 

There are two systems or methods in carry- 
ing on industry and commerce, viz.: the com- 
petitive and the co-operative, the individualis- 
tic and the socialistic. The industrial strife in 
the United States and in Europe is due to com- 
petition. At this writing 150,000 employees 
are fighting their employers in a strike and 

[208] 



German Culture 

lockout, and several have already been killed. 
Competition in its natural evolution has come 
to mean war. Cut-throat competition is not a 
misnomer. Co-operation, on the other hand, 
makes for peace. 

There is no competitive strike, no competi- 
tive commercial struggle going on anywhere in 
the world to-day that could not be settled in an 
hour by co-operation. Only as co-operation, in 
some form, is substituted for competition are 
industrial peace and good will tvithin any sin- 
gle nation, possible. Can the same be said of 
international relations? We do not think so. 
The nations as units are so large, their inter- 
ests so diverse, they are so different in lan- 
guage, habits, civilization, ideals and aspira- 
tions, that co-operation in industry and com- 
merce to any extent is impossible. It follows 
that the nations will for a loiig time be on a 
competitive basis. 

In the past the extension of trade and com- 
merce may have been deemed a sufficient cause 
for war. It is so no longer. The moral and 
social evolution of the race has outlawed it. 
The attempt of Germany to revive this species 
of brigandage even by way of pretext in the 
present war is resented by all nations. Bern- 
hardi says, in '' Germany and the Next War,'* 
''Our political power gained by war rendered 
possible the vast progress of our trade and 
commerce ' ' : and he not only justifies but com- 
mends war for these objects. 
[209] 



''Made in Germany'' 

There is more error than truth in this state- 
ment. German trade has not developed by fol- 
lowing the German flag, but by following up 
the progress and liberal policies of other coun- 
tries. This is the chief reason for German 
trade in India, South America and the United 
States. Canada has more trade with Germany 
than with England. 

Germany had all the foreign trade she could 
manage. It exceeded $4,500,000,000 annually, 
surpassing that of any other country. She is 
not waging a commercial war, since no nation 
placed any obstacle in the way of her unlimi- 
ted expansion. 

Mr. Clarence W. Barron in his interesting 
volume, ''The Audacious War," while laying 
great emphasis upon the commercial factor in 
the war, says, Germany had triumphed over all 
other nations in commerce, ''her enterprise, 
her industry and her merchants have spread 
themselves over the surface of the earth to a 
degree little realized. ' ' 

Germany, therefore, had not the slightest 
need of a commercial war since she had noth- 
ing to gain by it. All doors were freely open 
to her. Her goods went everywhere. Eng- 
land and most of her colonies let them come 
in free, while Germany kept English goods out 
by a twenty per cent, tariff. 

It is true that the home trade of any country, 
especially in an autocratic government will be 
increased by enlarging the national boundaries, 
[210] 



German Culture 

but the struggle is more and more for foreign 
markets. Admitting that the development of 
trade may have been a factor in Germany's 
action in bringing on the war, it was not the 
efficient cause. 

(6) The control of the Balkans as a cause 
of the war is included in the first alleged cause. 

(5) The Slav Menace, another alleged cause 
of the war, we have seen, on page 105, to be 
a mere pretence originating in the universities 
and designed solely to keep up to a white heat 
the war spirit of the people. 

(4) Envy toward Germany. The Kaiser 
declared that, ^'Envious people everywhere are 
compelling us to our just defence. ' ' 

If German prosperity has been so marvel- 
lous in spite of ''envious people," why not let 
well enough alone? What "defence" is needed? 
Just where and when did the army of "envi- 
ous people" fall upon Germany? The truth 
is there was no attack or threatened attack. 
The only envy that existed was the envy of 
Germany against England and other countries. 

The action of Germany in beginning the war 
was in no sense a "defence" of any kind, but 
an open, aggressive assault upon other nations. 
The Kaiser never appeared at a worse advan- 
tage than in giving "envious people" as the 
cause of war. No one envied Germany. Even 
if envy existed it furnished not the slightest 
cause for war and the Kaiser knows it. False- 
hood never assumed a thinner or more ridic- 
[211] 



"Made in Germany'* 

ulous mask than in this utterance of the Kaiser. 

(3) *'A Place in the Sun " is repeatedly de- 
clared to be Germany's object in the war. It 
means that Germany has no longer room for 
her population and must, therefore, seize the 
territory of other nations. 

Since 1816 her population has increased from 
25,000,000 to 65,000,000, and it is claimed that 
the people are cramped and in distress and the 
surplus population cannot exist without an ex- 
tension of territory. This is important if true. 
It is not true. German statistics show its fal- 
sity. Her agricultural population is no larger 
to-day than it was a hundred years ago. Her 
wonderful development in manufacturing has 
drawn the people into manufacturing centers. 
By intensive farming the products of the soil 
have been many times multiplied, so that the 
staple products, like rye, wheat and potatoes, 
have trebled. Her foreign trade has so enor- 
mously increased that there is a constantly 
increasing demand for laborers. Note the fall- 
ing off in emigration. Twenty years ago, 125,- 
000 Germans emigrated yearly to this country. 
In 1912 we received only 12,500. Notwithstand- 
ing the vast increase in population, the con- 
sumption in cereals alone for each person has 
increased 150 per cent. 

Mr. Arthur von Gwinner, the leading banker 

in Germany, wrote an article under the title of 

''English and German Economics" in 1912, in 

which occurs the following: ^'Germany, as a 

[212] 



German Culture 

matter of fact, has not sufficient people for her 
land. In spite of her increasing population, 
over 750,000 agricultural laborers have to he 
brought yearly from outside our frontiers to 
till the land and reap the harvest. It is, there- 
fore, as much out of the question to talk of 
Germany's over-population as of her necessity 
for exporting men, as long as the world's mar- 
kets remain open to her for exporting goods, 
in order to pay for the indispensable imports 
of food stuffs by export of German industrial 
energy." This gentleman is one of the men 
around the Kaiser and an authority. This 
annual importation of farm laborers is abun- 
dantly confirmed. Dr. Franz Oppenheimer, a 
Professor of Berlin University, says: *' Ger- 
many has eighty million acres of agriculture 
and only seventeen millions of agricultural pop- 
ulation ; if the land were put to use, the peas- 
ants could have all the land they could profit- 
ably cultivate, and would be independent, com- 
fortable, middle-class people and almost half 
of the whole agricultural area would still re- 
main unoccupied." "We are taking our facts 
and figures only from the highest German 
authority. It thus appears that Germany, in- 
stead of being over-peopled, is not half popu- 
lated nor is her agricultural land half tilled. 
Instead of being crowded and suffering for 
want of room, the Germans are extremely pros- 
perous, healthy and happy. These statistics 
show an increasingly high standard of living, 
[213] 



"Made in Germany" 

a decreased death rate, increased demand for 
labor, decrease of emigration, increase of for- 
eign trade, and a great increase in wealth, espe- 
cially in Prussia, where, in the sixteen years 
ending in 1911, the aggregate income increased 
from 15,000,000,000 marks to 27,000,000,000, a 
gain of more than eighty per cent. When, 
therefore, the Kaiser says that on account of 
increase of population, Germany has to wage 
war for her right to '*A Place in the Sun," he 
is simply stating what is not true. 

(2) Spread of German Culture. We have 
seen how culture in Germany is related to war, 
or rather how German apologists have at- 
tempted to show that it was the mission of 
Germany to extend her superior culture over 
all other nations, and in the fulfillment of this 
mission she was making this great sacrifice of 
blood and treasure. 

What are Americans to do with this propo- 
sition made in all seriousness by the German 
Emperor, university professors, statesmen and 
other representatives of the nation? 

Let us say at once that the attempt to extend 
culture by the bayonet is not a rational pro- 
ceeding. No nation ever did it. There is no 
precedent for it. It requires a spirit of altru- 
ism that Germany does not possess. The his- 
tory of mankind furnishes no example of such 
sublime benevolence. Germany, a great and 
mighty nation, eager to shed the blood of mil- 
lions of her sons and to spend billions of treas- 
[214], 



German Culture 

ure, that she may give to her hated enemies, 
'' barbarous Eussia," "frivolous France" and 
*' perfidious England," the one distinguishing 
possession of her own greatness — ^lier kultur! 
How shall we reconcile this position with Bern- 
hardi's statement that all brotherly love is 
bounded by the state line? No, the cause of 
this war was not the desire to spread German 
kultur. Of all the causes assigned this is the 
most far-fetched and insincere. It was de- 
signed to give a color of respectability to a 
monstrous crime. 

(1) The lust for Conquest is the one only 
efficient and sufficient cause of the war. Other 
contributing causes such as the control of the 
Balkans are all included in this one purpose. 
Pan-Germanism alone explains the entire situ- 
ation. All diplomatic negotiations leading up 
to Germany's declaration of war against Rus- 
sia, her huge armaments, which she has been 
piling up for a generation, thus forcing other 
nations to follow her example or perish, the 
writings of leading Germans declaring that 
''war is a good thing" ; that it is a ''biological 
necessity"; that it is "ordained of God"; that 
it is "the greatest factor in the furtherance of 
culture as well as power" ; that it has "achieved 
greater things than love"; the toast, "To the 
Day," that the German navy has been drinking 
for years and which means the day of German 
domination not only of Europe hut of the 
world; and pages of similar utterances, all 
[215] 



''Made in Germany'* 

show conclusively the one supreme purpose of 
Germany as declared hy her foremost repre- 
sentative, viz., ''World Power or Downfall." 
Bernhardi admits our contention thus: ''New 
territory must he obtained at the cost of its 
possessors — that is to say, hy conquest. . . . 
It is not the possessor hut the victor who then 
has the right." 

Conquest then is the one solution of the war. 
It explains all the problems connected with it. 
It alone accounts for the German doctrine of 
Machtpolitic — the doctrine that might makes 
right, which has been a veritable Pandora's 
box, letting loose in Germany the above named 
abominable principles unblushingly avowed by 
her philosophers. 

All the excuses, explanations, prevarications, 
apologies and falsehoods as to the causes of 
the war, are resolved into thin air and disap- 
pear before the word conquest. The pretended 
struggle for existence, the danger of a Rus- 
sian invasion, the need of expansion, French 
revenge, a defensive war, British envy, are 
miserable subterfuges to cover up Germany's 
wicked purpose to dominate Europe and the 
world. 

Everywhere men are asking what this war 
is about, what does Germany want? The an- 
swer is, conquest. Conquest also explains the 
savagery inaugurated by Germany in prose- 
cuting the war. Americans have been reluc- 
tant to admit that the lust of conquest was the 
[216] 



German Culture 

sole cause of the war. With the new sense of 
right that now prevails, such a reversal to bar- 
barism in a country so enlightened as Germany 
was unthinkable. 

What are the motives behind a war of con- 
quest? The answer is, the basest passions in 
the human breast. In the highest authority on 
earth we read, ''From whence come wars and 
fightings among you? Come they not from 
your lusts that war in your members?" Here 
ends the search for the cause of the war. Lust 
is the psychology of conquest; power-lust, 
land-lust, spoils-lust, money-lust, blood-lust, 
fame-lust, hatred-lust and vengeance-lust. 

It is this vile, festering, loathsome swarm of 
lusts, detested by all right minded men, that 
Germany summons to her aid in her war of 
conquest. She will not succeed. The stars in 
their courses are fighting against her. In all 
that makes for peace, good will and brother- 
hood, Christendom has moved forward more in 
the last hundred years than in all the cen- 
turies of the Christian era. 

It has pleased Almighty God to convert 
steam, electricity and machinery into a world 
evangel girdling the earth with the steamboat, 
the railroad and the telegraph, which He is 
employing as the winged messengers of fra- 
ternity and love. 

On the border line between Chili and Argen- 
tina, these nations have erected a beautiful 
monument of peace. The granite base is sur- 
[217] 



^'Made in Germany'* 

mounted with a colossal statue of the Christ. 
In his left hand He holds a cross, while his 
right hand stretches toward the skies, invok- 
ing the benediction of Heaven upon the world, 
to whom with solemn ceremony the monument 
was dedicated. It bears this inscription: — 
*' Sooner shall these mountains crumble into 
dust, than the Argentines and Chileans break 
the peace to which they have pledged them- 
selves at the feet of Christ the Redeemer." 

In this sign the nations will conquer war. 
Let this sublime sentiment be enthroned at the 
Hague. On every border land between the na- 
tions let a similar monument be erected in- 
scribed in letters, deep cut and ineffaceable, 
with a covenant of perpetual peace, and then 
the glad day will have come, when swords shall 
be beaten into plowshares and spears into 
pruning hooks and the nations shall learn war 
no more. 



[218] 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: ^^^ ^OGI 

Preservationtechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Townsliip, PA 16066 



